The following news release was made available on Nov. 28, 2014 by Denver Police Department spokesman Matt Murray in response to a FOX31 Denver investigation.
DENVER — Friday, November 28, 2014 — On Saturday, November 22, 2014, Fox 31 news investigative reporter Chris Halsne contacted the Denver Police Department seeking comment about a felony narcotics arrest from August 14, 2014. The Denver Police Department informed Mr. Halsne that we would be happy to respond on Monday morning when the facts of the incident he was asking about could be ascertained. Fox 31 began running what are commonly known as “promo’s” (advertisements) indicating that they were investigating an excessive force allegation as well as corruption and a cover-up.
On Monday, November 24, 2014, the Denver Police Department spoke with Chris Halsne by phone, spoke with Fox 31 management by phone, and met with Chris Halsne in person for an interview. The Denver Police Department spoke with Mr. Halsne again on November 25, 2014, after his initial story aired and it was apparent he would be airing a second story regarding the same incident.
The Denver Police Department believes that Chris Halsne and Fox 31 have acted intentionally and irresponsibly in reporting this incident. We are issuing this press release to clarify facts, which were minimized, omitted, or misconstrued.
Transparency is critical to DPD’s Chief White, and it is essential to maintaining a positive and trusting relationship with our community. As such, we cannot stand idly by as the truth is distorted. We, the Denver Police Department, fully understand that we work for the community and that they will set the standards and expectations that we must abide by. But that requires that facts be fully and accurately reported.
TWO DISTINCT ISSUES:
This incident involves two distinct and separate issues:
1. Was the force used (as reported by officers and viewed in the video aired by Fox 31) legal and within policy?
2. Is there merit to witness Levi Frasier’s claims that the Denver Police Department illegally searched his computer and then engaged in a “cover-up” by destroying evidence?
USE OF FORCE
The Denver Police Department does not tolerate excessive force. But we also recognize that there are incidents where the use of force becomes necessary. Witnessing the necessary use of force can be disturbing. However, there are times when officers must respond to the actions a suspect chooses. Like in this case, when a felony narcotic suspect violently resists officers and refuses to obey their legal commands.
This case was reviewed by the police department at three levels. This was despite the fact that no complaint has ever been lodged against officers. All three reviews found that the officer’s actions were legal and within policy.
The officers were confronted with a person they were arresting for possession of narcotics with the intent to distribute. The suspect refused officer’s command to submit to arrest and to release the narcotics, which were contained in a sock, he had in his mouth. Officers repeatedly asked and then ordered that he spit the evidence out. The suspect refused to comply.
Officers, and witness Levi Frasier, all attempted to pull the sock from the suspect’s mouth. Finally, uniformed officers arrived and Levi stepped back and began to video the encounter. Responding officers knew that the suspect had suspected heroin in his mouth, and that swallowing the drugs could be fatal. They were also legally within their rights to retrieve the contraband as evidence.
A violent struggle, prompted by the suspect, was already underway. This left the officers with limited options for recovering the evidence and preventing ingestion and a likely medical emergency. The officer chose not to grab the suspect’s throat (to prevent him from swallowing) but instead opted to strike the non-compliant suspect several times. We feel this was the better of the two choices. These strikes did cause the suspect to comply with the arrest and to relinquish the narcotics.
There is a second use of force observed in the video as the suspect’s girlfriend attempts to intervene in the felony arrest. The female approaches officers, screaming, and is pushed or tripped and falls.
The female chose to intervene. Officers did not know who she was, what her intentions were, or what threat she posed. They acted appropriately in pushing her away from stopping the violent struggle and retrieving the narcotics in her boyfriend’s mouth.
Based on all of the statements and evidence we had prior to the news story on November 24, 2014, the officers actions were deemed to be legal and within policy.
The Denver Police Department Internal Affairs Bureau is conducting another investigation (though, as stated previously, we have still not received a complaint) to determine if there is new evidence, which would change the determination.
Former Denver Manager of Public Safety and Colorado Supreme Court Justice Alex Martinez used to tell us that “reasonable people” can disagree about the facts or what conclusions the facts lead to. We understand that there are those who will not agree with our determination about the appropriateness of the force used in this case. Ultimately, the community is the arbiter of the law and of policy and we welcome that transparent debate.
ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION/COVER-UP
Witness Levi Frasier makes the second allegation. He tells Fox 31’s Chris Halsne that Denver Police Officers took his Samsung tablet (the one used to video the incident) and that against his wishes; they looked through files and then deleted the video of the incident, which had just occurred. He says that he later recovered the video through a “cloud- based” back-up service.
Frasier states that this was an illegal search and that it is corrupt to destroy evidence of an excessive force incident.
If these allegations are true, then we concur.
However, there are numerous facts that Chris Halsne and Fox 31 either minimize or omit in their reporting. We believe that they are relevant and should have been provided to Fox 31’s audience as a part of a balanced, ethical, and un-biased news account.
The use of force incident is separate, and may be reviewed and weighed by the officer’s statements, video taken by Mr. Frasier, and other evidence contained in the investigation.
However, the allegations of misconduct regarding illegal search, destruction of evidence, and a cover-up, all hinge on the veracity of Mr. Frasier. There is no independent evidence that we are aware of that would lead the reviewer to a conclusion.
Therefore, as a basis for weighing the statement of Mr. Frasier, there are facts, which should have been reported, and others, which should have been pointed out with greater weight:
1. Levi Frasier told Fox’s Chris Halsne that he didn’t know if the officer deleted the video, if he had deleted the video, or if the video had even been deleted at all.
2. Levi Frasier made a statement to police immediately following the use of force. In that statement he told officers that he felt they had acted correctly. He confirms this to reporter Chris Halsne. Frasier also told officers that he did not have a video, but rather has been using “snapchat” and that the pictures he took were gone.
3. Levi Frasier has never initiated a complaint with the Denver Police Department regarding any of his allegations.
4. Levi Frasier did not provide the video of the arrest to the Denver Police Department. He retained an attorney and then provided the video to Fox 31 for “limited use.”
5. After DPD completed an on-camera interview with Chris Halsne, Levi Frasier went to the Denver FBI Office and gave them a copy of the video. The FBI alerted us to the fact that they had a copy of the video.
6. We have no indication that the FBI is investigating this case.
7. Levi Frasier was released from the Michigan Department of Corrections in the spring of 2014, where he served a lengthy sentence for numerous charges including: breaking and entering, home invasion, and stealing or retaining a transaction device.
8. Levi Frasier has six aliases. Typically, an alias is derived by either a legal name change, or the illegal use of someone else’s name or lying about one’s identity to the police.
PEOPLE IN THE VIDEO
1. Although both were interviewed regarding the use of force, neither initiated a complaint against officers.
2. Both parties are now fugitives.
3. The pregnant woman seen in the video was charged with child abuse. Chris Halsne reports that this was due to having her children in the car. A more accurate statement would be that she was charged with child abuse for bringing her children to a heroin transaction.
4. The pregnant woman was also found to be in possession of drug paraphernalia.
1. The police “expert” interviewed for the story is a retired Brighton Police Sergeant. The police expert is a paid witness for the defendants in this case.
Clearly, at issue is whether police officers deleted a video from Levi Frasier’s Samsung tablet. Thus it would seem that a review, even a cursory lay person review, of the tablet’s files, audit trail for file deletion, and the audit trail for the cloud back-up service would be important considerations to assist in determining the veracity of Mr. Frasier’s complaint. But the Denver Police Department does not have access to either Mr. Frasier, his records, or his Samsung tablet. And though Chris Halsne and Fox 31 presumably had access to all three, this was not mentioned in their story.
We believe that a thorough review of the physical evidence is merited due to the serious allegations being made in this case. We also believe that Fox 31 should have conducted such a review prior to reporting the allegations in the sensational manner that they did.
Chief White is committed to creating a police department, which treats everyone in a respectful manner. He believes in transparency and accountability. If we are wrong, we will say so and hold those responsible accountable. However, when our officers act appropriately (as they do in the vast majority of calls they handle), it is just as important the chief, the police department, and the community supports them.
Chief White expects that the Internal Affairs Bureau complete a thorough examination of all the facts, old and new; that all allegations are taken seriously; and that the results of that examination are available for public inspection.
We thank the community for their willingness to consider the issues contained in this document with an open mind.