PAPD Officer Parham Runs a Stop Sign and The Making of a PAPD Complaint

Complaint of Rudeness and Intimidation #C 2010-006

PAPD officer Luis Parham

This feature article will be continually up-dated.   So please check back with us periodically as we expose the “Naked Truth”.

Synopsis: A community member riding a bicycle complained that two PAPD officers had driven an unmarked car past him in excess of the speed limit and made a “fast rolling stop” through a stop sign. He asserted that when he confronted the two officers at the coffee shop where they stopped, they both admitted their excessive speed and stated that they were in a hurry to get to a meeting.

The complainant averred that he was very sensitive about speeding because he frequently rides his bicycle. One of the officers paused to talk to the complainant in the parking lot of the coffee shop while the other officer went into the shop. When he came out, the complainant was still talking to the partner officer. Later that day, the complainant phoned a complaint into the Department.

Recommendation: The IPA reviewed the interviews of the complainant and the two involved officers in this case. There were no audio or video recordings of the incident. While there were a few uninvolved civilian witnesses in the coffee shop parking lot who evidently stopped to watch the conversation between the complainant and the officers, none were identified at the time.

This is understandable since the officers did not then know that the encounter would engender an administrative investigation. The case presents two starkly different views of the facts. The complainant said the car “flew past” him and “blew” the stop sign. The officers said they drove at a normal rate, did not ignore the stop sign, and that they did not see the complainant or his bicycle anywhere along the route.

The complainant saw a brown car. The officers say they were driving a red car. The officers said they were in no hurry to get to their meeting. The complainant said they both admitted to being in a hurry. The complainant said he had a “frank discussion” with one of the officers. The officers described him as very angry, spitting, and “going off.”

During his conversation with the officers, the complainant told the officers that they had “almost run him over.” The complainant did not, however, make any mention of direct danger to himself during his Internal Affairs interview or in his complaint call to the Department.

We also note that Internal Affairs arranged for a formal interview of the complainant on the same day that he phoned his complaint in to the Department and that this complaint investigation was completed in less than a month. We hope the Department can emulate this commendable swiftness with complaints of this type in the future.

Resolution/Corrective Action:

The Department concluded that the complaint is not sustained. In light of the diametrically opposed nature of the statements and the fact that there is no other ready source of evidence that can be explored in addition to the statements of the three participants, the IPA recommends that it would be more appropriate to categorize this complaint as unresolved.

Update: May 10th, 2011

There are many aspects concerning this complaint which are troubling.  First, it’s classification. Complaint of Rudeness and Intimidation #C 2010-006.  Were not sure if this is a reverse complaint about me or them…..LOL

None of these officers where rude.  In fact, Jesus Panada was very friendly and talkative when approached and apologized for his partner running the stop sign.  He stated, ‘were human too and we make mistakes’. Officer Jesus Panada was Parham’s passenger.

Mr. Miller, from the Office of Independent Review, on the other hand, characterized the events of this complaint and conversation as “confrontational”.  I was quick to point out that our conversation was consensual but truthful.

There was never a harsh word exchanged that would have even come remotely close to characterizing me by both officers as being “very angry, spitting, and “going off.”  One would think, such behavior would warrant, at the very least, a verbal warning for disturbing the peace.

When I first read the report, I just laughed but then realized both these officers were dishonest in their statements to internal affairs.

Mr. Miller along with Mr. Michael Genanco, were both hired by the city of Palo Alto to act as liaisons and police auditors to investigate police citizen complaints for their thoroughness and timeliness.

As I mentioned to Mr. Miller yesterday that I had made repeated phone calls,  follow-up emails, not only to the head of the Internal Affairs investigative team,  Lt. Sandra Brown, but,  Chief Dennis Burns, Doug Keith along with a presentation to city council which included the distribution and copy of the original complaint.

I never heard back from anyone.  So you can imagine, my reaction to one of Mr. Miller’s conclusions;

http://bit.ly/m87rqQ

Published on March 7th, 2011.

“We also note that Internal Affairs arranged for a formal interview of the complainant on the same day that he phoned his complaint in to the Department and that this complaint investigation was completed in less than a month. We hope the Department can emulate this commendable swiftness with complaints of this type in the future.”

Next the complaint timeline so stay tuned….

Update: May 11th, 2011

Will the California Public Records Act divulge the “Naked Truth”, as to the actual swiftness and handling of this complaint?

California Public Records Act Government Code Section 6250 – http://1.usa.gov/mlAwD1

 

To: Beth Minor” <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc:molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org, “Sandra Brown” <Sandra.Brown@CityofPaloAlto.org>, city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org, “Dennis Burns” <Dennis.Burns@CityofPaloAlto.org>

 

The California Public Records Request Greetings!

Re: Complaint of Rudeness and Intimidation #C 2010-006

Please produce all of the following information on the above referenced citizen complaint.

 

  • Date PAPD received complaint.
  • Date PAPD imitated investigation.
  • Date PAPD completed investigation.
  • Date PAPD reviewed it’s investigation findings / analysis with complainant.
  • Date PAPD reviewed it’s investigation findings / analysis with IPA
  • Dates of all follow-ups initiated by PAPD with complainant.
  • Dates of all conversations initiated by PAPD with IPA on citizen complaint.
  • Dates of all emails initiated by PAPD with IPA on citizen complaint.
  • Dates of all emails initiated by PAPD with complainant.
  • Dates of all conversation i.e. phone calls initiated by PAPD with comlaintant

Must be received by: March 23rd, 2011 –  6255 of the Government code

The agency must provide assistance

by helping to identify records and information relevant to the request and suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access. (§ 6253.1)

see: Government Code & 6253 re time limits for said disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

See: Writings as defined in California Public Records Section 6252(f) and Evidence Code & 250.

If you believe I am not entitled to the requested records I am requesting that you justify your refusal within (ten) days in writing under & 6255 of the Government code. You may only refuse to give me these records if there is an express law prohibiting you from giving them to me.

In the case of California State University of Fresno Assn, Inc. V Superior Court McClatchy Co. (2001) 90 Cal App.4th 810, the court held that “The burden of proof is on the proponent of nondisclosure, who must demonstrate “clear overbalance” on the side of confidentiality.”

Please provide any additional legal authority you would like me to be aware of re this request . Please feel free to contact me to discuss this request if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

PaloAltoFreePress.com

Update: May 14th, 2011

Department Complaints / Internal Affairs Investigations/ IPA Process Highlights Explained

 

 

  • In person
  • By email on the Police Department’s website.
  • By telephone
  • [OIR] Through the Office of Independent Review
  • Internal timeline of 30 days to complete
  • Chief sign off
  • Complaint goes back to Lt. Sandra Brown
  • Copy is sent to OIR[Office of Independent Review] for their review.
  • Conference regarding the investigation / Lt. Sandra Brown – OIR
  • Complainant is then notified of the disposition.

Material source: Minutes from behind closed doors secret meetings.

http://bit.ly/m226iE

Editor’s note: Public and Press are forbidden from attending.

Update May 24th, 2011 – Results of California Public Records Request

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: CPRA – Complaint of Rudeness and Intimidation #C 2010-006
From: “Brown, Sandra” <Sandra.Brown@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Date: Thu, May 19, 2011 3:28 pm
To: <editor@paloaltofreepress.com>
Cc: <molly.stunp@cityofpaloalto.org>;, “Minor, Beth”
Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>, “Teixeira, Barbara”
Barbara.Teixeira@CityofPaloAlto.org>

Good Morning Mark,

A. Date PAPD received complaint.

June 18, 2010

B. Date PAPD initiated investigation.

June 25, 2010

C.Date PAPD completed investigation.

August 30, 2010

D. Date PAPD reviewed its investigation findings / analysis with complainant.

October 14, 2010  (This claim is in dispute should read None)

E. Date PAPD reviewed its investigation findings / analysis with IPA

December 10, 2010 – Mailed Copy to IPA January 3, 2011

F. Dates of all follow-ups initiated by PAPD with complainant.

None

G. Dates of all conversations initiated by PAPD with IPA on citizen complaint.

None

H. Dates of all emails initiated by PAPD with IPA on citizen complaint.

None

I. Dates of all emails initiated by PAPD with complainant.

None

J. Dates of all conversation i.e. phone calls initiated by PAPD with complainant

None

Thank you,
Lieutenant Sandra C. Brown
Personnel & Training
Palo Alto Police Department
Phone:  (650) 329-2394
Voice:   (650) 617-3100 x2394

As noted in my original request. CPRA laws mandate responses to be received within 10 days of the initial request. I’m please to report this request was received ahead of schedule.

However, the answers to my request, are in fact candid and quite revealing far different from what was originally reported to city council leadership by the head of the PAPD’s Internal Affairs unit Lt. Sandra Brown and the Independent Police Auditors team of Michael Genanco contracted by the city of Palo Alto to insure police complaint protocols are adhered to as noted above.

This report as we all know, was collaboratively prepared by the PAPD’s Internal Affairs unit and the Independent Police Auditors team of Michael Genanco which seems to be seriously flawed and may in fact contain elements of fraud.

Keep in mind both agency’s are high skilled and trained in the art of deception.

Let’s regress for a moment and look back at the concluding remarks of Genanco’s highly skilled team of lawyers and compare how this actually measures up with the California Public Records request.

“We also note that Internal Affairs arranged for a formal interview of the complainant on the same day that he phoned his complaint in to the Department and that this complaint investigation was completed in less than a month. We hope the Department can emulate this commendable swiftness with complaints of this type in the future.”

Five Elements of Fraud – http://bit.ly/iXzKR0

1. First the person must make a false claim.

The reporting party Lt. Sandra Brown chief of the Internal Affairs unit knew that the complaint was not completed in less then 30 days as everyone was lead to be beleive, through the discovery of a CPRA thus paving the way to revealing their web of sophisticated deception.

2. Then they must know that the information they are submitting is wrong.

Both parties in this case knew the information was in fact wrongfully submitted and conspired to present misinformation to city council. None of the outlined citizen complaint protocols or processes were adhered to as noted above. (see Department Complaints / Internal Affairs Investigations/IPA Process Highlights Explained). Checks and balances were completely ignored and unconfirmed.

3. The person using the information has to have the intent to commit fraud.

Both parties were well equipped with a complete and thorough understanding of citizen complaint protocol guidelines.

These guideline were woefully neglected with the full knowledge and understanding by both reporting parties that the information was misrepresented. There joint actions demonstrate a total systemic quality failure for the sole purpose and intent of reporting expediency. “commendable swiftness”

4. The payout must be based on thinking the documents are truthful.

Messages were left with several city council members to determine whether or not members were in fact reading the reports submitted by the Genanco team of Lawyers. Council member Greg Schmid was the only person to respond.

We both agreed on the absence of any documented timelines as to when the citizen complaints were initiated and the time in which it was finalized. I also pointed out the misleading classification of this complaint as “unfounded” when it should have been classified and noted in the report, as “unresolved”.

5. There must be some damage, such as a monetary loss.

The actual losses to the city of Palo Alto in this case, is payment for services which were not truthfully rendered and may in fact only be the tip of the iceberg.

The spinning of this sophisticated web of deceit can be further highlighted and illustrated by the sheer facts as revealed, that both parties were relying on no particular person to question the validity of reports submitted by Genanco and his team of attorneys. Perhaps they were depending on getting away with the following disguise.

Plausible deniability

Refers to the denial of blame in loose and informal chains of command where upper rungs quarantine the blame to the lower rungs, and the lower rungs are often inaccessible, meaning confirming responsibility for the action is nearly impossible.

In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts.

In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a “powerful player” or actor to avoid “blowback” by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party—ostensibly unconnected with the major player.

In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay “clean” and denounce advertisements that use unethical approaches or innuendo based on opposition research.

More generally, “plausible deniability” can also apply to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse. (As to the original submitted police auditors reports – Comment added.)

Examples of this are the use of electric shock, waterboarding or pain-compliance holds a means of torture or punishment, leaving few or no tangible signs that the abuse ever took place.

Plausible deniability is a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases.

In civil cases, the standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence” whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If your opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, you can “plausibly deny” the allegation even though it may be true.

http://bit.ly/7V5F

For the moment, We will leave it up to our readers and to a jury of their peers to determine if in fact fraud was committed based on evidence submitted. But as it stands, we beleive community fraud has been committed and those responsible should be held accountable short of jail time or disbarment.