DenverGov.org 311. ~~ ~EN~ER ~,;, r PUBLIC SAFETY. September 23, 2015

Stephanie Y. O'Malley Executive Director of the Department of Safety ~~ ~EN~ER ~,;, r PUBLIC SAFETY 1331 Cherokee Street Room 302 Oenver, CO 80204 p: 720.913.6020 f: 720.913.7028 www denvergov.org/safety Christopher Pratt, S06035 Deputy Sheriff Downtown Division Denver Sheriff Department Re: DSD IAB Case #S2014-0209 Deputy Pratt: This is official notification that, after an independent review by the Office of the Executive Director of the Department of Safety, you are being terminated effective immediately for misconduct that violated the following Career Service Rules and Sheriff Department Rules, as set forth below and discussed more fully in the section of this letter entitled Departmental Determinations of Discipline (pgs. 7-26). Career Service Rule 16-60 Discipline and Dismissal: The following may be cause for discipline or dismissal of a Career Service employee: A. Neglect of duty. E. Any act of dishonesty... M. Threatening, fighting with, intimidating or abusing employees or officers of the City, or any other member of the public, for any reason. L. Failure to observe written departmental or agency regulations, policies or rules. As it relates to: Denver Sheriff Departmental Rules and Regulations '. _u: Deputies shall obey all Departmental rules, regulations, duties, procedures, instructions, and orders; the provisions of the Operations Manual; Mayor's Executive Orders; and Rules of the Career Service Authority. Failure to comply with any of these shall be construed as a violation. Members in violation shall be subject to disciplinary action. The following provisions of conduct FDR Cf1Y SERVICES VISR DenverGov.org 311

-2- shall be construed as a rule violation of the Operations Manual and Directives and Orders of the Denver Sheriff Department, but not by way of limitation. 200.4.2 Commission of a Deceptive Act In connection with any investigation or any judicial or administrative proceeding, deputy sheriffs and employees shall not willfully, intentionally, or knowingly commit a materially deceptive act, including but not limited to departing from the truth verbally, making a false report, or intentionally omitting information. Under the DSD disciplinary matrix, a violation of DSD Rule 200.4.2 is a Conduct Category F violation. 300.11.1 Conduct Prohibited by Law Deputy sheriffs and employees shall not violate the Charter of the City and County of Denver, or any City ordinances, state or federal statutes. Under the DSD disciplinary matrix, a violation of DSD Rule 300.11.1 is a Conduct Category A through F violation. As it pertains to Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-111 False Reporting to Authorities, which states in relevant part: (1) A person commits false reporting to authorities, if: (b) He makes a report or knowingly causes the transmission of a report to law enforcement authorities of a crime or other incident within their official concern when he knows that it did not occur;.... (2) False reporting to authorities is a class 3 misdemeanor; except that if it is committed in violation of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section and committed during the commission of another criminal offense, it is a class 2 misdemeanor. 300.11.6 Conduct Prejudicial Deputy sheriffs and employees shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the good order and effectiveness of the department or conduct that brings disrepute on or compromises the integrity of the City or the Department or conduct unbecoming which: (a) (b) May or may not specifically be set forth in Department rules and regulations or the Operations Manual; or Causes harm greater than would reasonably be expected to result, regardless of whether the misconduct is specifically set forth in the Department rules and regulations or the Operations Manual. Under the DSD disciplinary matrix, a violation of DSD Rule 300.11.6 is a Conduct Category A through F violation. FQRCfT'fSERV~CESVISR DenuerGau.org 311

-3-300.19.1 Disobedience of Rule Deputy sheriffs and employees shall not violate any lawful Departmental rule (including CSA rules), duty, procedure, policy, directive, instruction, order (including Mayor's Executive Orders), or Operations Manual section. Under the DSD disciplinary matrix, a violation of DSD Rule 300.19.1 is a Conduct Category A through F violation. As it pertains to Department Order 2000.11 Exercise of Authority as Peace Officers to Stop and Arrest Suspects, which states in relevant part: Purpose: The Sheriff and Denver Deputy Sheriffs are peace officers under the laws of the State of Colorado. The purpose of this order is to formalize certain practices in existence and to prescribe clarifying written policy and guidelines far the Sheriff and Denver Deputy Sheriffs in exercising their authority as peace officers to stop or arrest persons suspected of violating the laws of the State of Colorado and the Charter and Ordinances of the City and County of Denver. 2. Policy: It is the policy of the Denver Sheriff Department (DSD) that, when the Sheriff and Denver Deputy Sheriffs exercise their authority as peace officers to stop suspects or effect arrests, they do so in compliance with relevant federal, state and local laws, Department Orders, rules, regulations, policies, procedures, directives, and the Denver Sheriff Department (DSD) Personnel Manual. This order shall apply to all commissioned officers of the Denver Sheriff Department. 7. Specific Grant of Authority by the Executive Director of Public Safety: B. The Sheriff and Denver Deputy Sheriffs are specifically authorized by Denver's Executive Director of Safety to exercise their authority as peace officers to stop suspects or effect arrests when on-duty, in uniform and within the City and County of Denver in order to render aid or assistance when requested by any member of the Denver Police Department (DPD} engaged in carrying out his/her duties and responsibilities as a Denver Police Officer. C. The Sheriff and Denver Deputy Sheriffs are specifically authorized by the Executive Director of Safety to exercise their authority as peace officers to effect arrests while onduty, in uniform and within the City and County of Denver when acting as a result of exigent circumstances. 14. Limitations on the Authority Granted by this Department Order: A. This policy is not intended to convey the responsibility for general law enforcement authority to deputies of the Denver Sheriff Department regarding all offenses occurring within the City and County of Denver. The authority granted is expressly permitted and limited by the provisions of this department order. FOR CITY SERVICES VISIT ~envergov.org 311

S2014-D209 Disciplinary Determination -4- E. In exercising the authority granted by this order, Denver Deputy Sheriffs shall not engage in the following activities: 8. The exercise of any authority as a peace officer while off duty except as specifically authorized in Section 15 of this Order (Limitations on Peace Officer Authority while Engaged in Authorized Secondary Employment); and 9. The exercise of any authority as a peace officer regarding a deputy's personal disputes or disputes involving family, neighbors or close friends/associates. 16. Limitations on the Authority to Act as a Peace Officer Outside the Jurisdiction of the City and County of Denver: A. Unless carrying out their specific duties and responsibilities as contained in applicable provisions of section 7A of this Department Order, Denver Deputy Sheriffs shall not have the authority to act as peace officers outside the City and County of Denver. 300.23 Intimidation of Persons Deputy sheriffs and employees shall not intimidate a prisoner or any other person for personal reasons under the color of authority. Under the DSD disciplinary matrix, a violation of DSD Rule 300.23 is a Conduct Category E violation. Z. Conduct prejudicial to the good order and effectiveness of the department or agency, or conduct that brings disrepute on or compromises the integrity of the City. PRE-DISCIPLINARY MEETING You were served with apre-disciplinary letter regarding this matter on July 29, 2015. A predisciplinary meeting was held on September 8, 2015 at approximately 1.00 pm, in the Denver Sheriff Department (DSD) Downtown Detention Center (DDC) administrative conference room, located at 490 West Colfax Avenue, Denier, Colorado. The purpose of this meeting was to allow you to correct any errors in the Agency's information or facts, to tell your side of the story, and to present any mitigating information as to why possible disciplinary action should not be taken against you. Present at this meeting was Sheriff Elias Diggins and Division Chief Venessie Brown. Present from the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) was Major Jodi Blair. Present from the Conduct Review Office (CRO) was Captain Stephanie McManus, Mr. Luis Lipchak, and Ms. Rochelle Wright. Present from the Executive Director of Safety's Office was Ms. Shannon Elwell. Present from the Office of the Independent Monitor was Mr. Gregg Crittenden. Present from the City Attorney's Office was Ms. Jennifer Jacobson and Ms. Kristin George. You attended this meeting with Mr. Don Sisson as your attorney. The pre-disciplinary meeting was transcribed and is contained in the IAB file, incorporated by reference herein. A brief summary of the pre-disciplinary meeting follows. FOR CfTY SERVICES VISIT DenverGov.org 311

-5- You deferred to your attorney, who then made a statement on your behalf. Your attorney highlighted your background and advanced arguments concerning potential issues in the case. Your attorney stated that you admit full responsibility for "flashing" your badge, and that you know that you shouldn't have done that. Your attorney stated that you are more than willing to accept whatever consequence comes your way for flashing your badge. Your attorney also stated that you admit and accept responsibility for calling your neighbor a "fat fuck," and that you recognize this conduct as inappropriate and conduct prejudicial to the image of the Department. Sheriff Diggins then had same clarifying questions far you, and asked you to restate your recollection of the incident. You stated that you were going through an emotional and distressing period of your life, and "wasn't in the right state of mind already." You stated that you hadn't been sleeping, were exhausted, and were not thinking clearly. You stated that your neighbors had a history of arguing and you could hear their arguments, which sometimes continued until the early hours of the morning. You stated that you mad a "stupid mistake" in thinking that if you went up to their apartment with your badge that it would de-escalate the situation. You said that, as soon as your neighbor opened the door, "it turned south really fast, and I'll admit that even the way that I behaved wasn't very well taken care of either, and definitely admit that I made my mistakes. I let my...emotions and everything else just get the better of me." Sheriff Diggins asked if your neighbor's claim that you tried to push open his door was correct. You responded that you saw your neighbor's wife coming out at the time at which your neighbor was closing his door, so you put your hand on the door instinctively to make sure she was okay. You stated that, when you saw that your neighbor's wife was okay, you let go of the door and left. Sheriff Diggins then quoted from your pre-disciplinary letter which referenced the 917 call you made, and asked you if it was correct that you had confirmed with the 911 dispatcher that your neighbor kicked you. You stated that it was correct, but you were going through the adrenaline rush at the time, and your thoughts were not clear and you were frantically talking to the dispatcher. You stated that it was just a miscommunication, and you had no intentions of misleading anyone or trying to cause further issues. Ms. Elwell then requested that you provide all potentially mitigating documentation, which you later sent to IAB and which was considered in the determination of discipline, as written below. The meeting then concluded with a commitment to return a response to you within fifteen days. Your previous discipline includes: Date/Served Type of Violation Discipline Imposed 10/17/12 Failure to Qualify 2 day suspension 01/28/10 Failure to Qualify Written Reprimand 11/03/09 Failure to Qualify Verbal Reprimand FOR CITY SERVICESVISIT DemerGov.org 311

S2~14-0209 Disciplinary Determination The Department has great concern regarding your ability to act responsibly and to conduct yourself appropriately while on duty. It is clear that your conduct has been unprofessional and in violation of the Department's policies and procedures. Your actions have also breached several of the Department's Guiding Principles of honesty, respect, fairness, openness, teamwork, judgment, sensitivity, personal leadership, integrity, accountability, and professionalism. Your conduct has compromised the mission of the Department. Termination of your employment is necessary to protect the integrity and professionalism of the Department and to protect the City and County of Denver from any potential liability that could arise from your continued employment. Please be advised that you may appeal the discipline imposed and these determinations in accordance with Career Service Rule 19, Appeals. You may also initiate dispute resolution pursuant to Career Service Rule 18, Dispute Resolution. Finally, please be reminded that you are not to take any retaliatory action against anyone has a result of this disciplinary action. If any such action is taken, further discipline may be contemplated and taken, up to and including dismissal. Sincerely, Shannon Elwell Civilian Review Administrator cc: Career Service Authority, Records Management Division IAB File Administration FOR CITY SERVICES VISff DenuerGov.org 311

- 7 - Deputy Christopher Pratt, S06o35 DEPARTMENTAL DETERMINATIONS OF DISCIPLINE Deputy Sheriff Christopher Pratt S2014-209 After a thorough review of the DSD Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) investigation, the Executive Director of the Department of Safety's Office has made the following findings of fact and determinations of discipline. SUMMARY OF FACTS The preponderance of evidence establishes the following summary of the facts and circumstances surrounding the conduct upon which discipline is being imposed. Deputy Pratt has been employed as a Deputy Sheriff with the Denver Sheriff Department (DSD) for approximately 9 years. On June 8, 2014, while on unpaid leave for an unrelated matter, Deputy Pratt was involved in an off-duty incident at his apartment building' in which he identified himself as a Deputy Sheriff and engaged in a confrontation with his neighbor. The Arvada Police Department (APD) was called and responded to the incident. An APD sergeant subsequently notified DSD IAB, and Deputy Pratt's conduct in this matter was investigated for potential rule violations. The entire investigative file has been reviewed, including but not limited to surveillance video footage, audio interviews, and relevant paperwork. On June 8, 2014, Deputy Pratt resided in an apartment directly below Mr. CM and Mrs. SMZ, who were 54 years old and 64 years old, respectively. Earlier that day, Deputy Pratt had been playing a videogame and heard stomping coming from the Ms' apartment. Deputy Pratt perceived the stomping to be an indication that the volume was too loud, so he subsequently turned down the volume. At approximately 10 pm that evening, while getting ready for bed, the Ms heard loud music coming from Deputy Pratt's apartment. In an attempt to get Deputy Pratt to again turn dawn the volume, Mr. CM again stomped his foot on the floor. Deputy Pratt, dressed in civilian clothing, then walked up to the Ms' door and pounded on it repeatedly, stating "You'd better open this door," which caused Mrs. SM to become frightened. Mr. CM then answered the door, after which Deputy Pratt stuck his badge and a finger in Mr. CM's face, and told Mr. CM that if he ever stomped on the floor again, Deputy Pratt would have Mr. CM arrested for domestic violence. Mr. CM then asked Deputy Pratt if this was a threat, and Deputy Pratt called Mr. CM derogatory names such as "fat fucker," "fat piece of shit," and "fat asshole." Mr. CM then tried to close his door, and Deputy Pratt put his hand on the door to stop the door from closing. Mr. CM was eventually able to close the door, and immediately called 911. Deputy Pratt returned to his apartment. Mr. CM's 911 call stated: "A guy showed me his badge, threatening me because I pounded my foot because he has loud music going on down below. He's ' Deputy PratYs apartment building was located in Arvada, Colorado, in the County of Jefferson. 2 Deputy PratYs neighbors and leasing manager are referred to herein by their initials. FOR CITY SERVICESYISR DenyerGou.org 311

- 8 - been doing it since he's moved in here. Now he's come up pounding my door because he wouldn't turn his music dawn. He threatened me, called me a 'fat piece of shit,' showed me his badge and stuff like that. He tried coming in my door, pushed my door open... He tried pushing the door open when I tried to close it on him... He threatened me." Another neighbor, who wished to remain anonymous, heard the events through the closed door of his apartment, one floor above the Ms' apartment. According to the anonymous witness, at approximately 10:10 pm, the anonymous witness heard someone beating on the door of his downstairs neighbor and he heard that person say, "Are you beating on your wife? Get out here you fat fuck. Are you beating on your floor when I play my music too loud? Get out here you fat asshole." The anonymous witness told IAB that the person on the other side of the door then said, "Are you an officer?" The anonymous witness stated he then heard "Get out here you fat fuck." When asked by IAB if he had ever heard anything from the Ms' apartment that could lead him to believe that there might be domestic violence going on, the anonymous witness said no. When asked to describe the knock on the Ms' door, the anonymous witness described the knock as "a cop knock" that "was very forceful." Several minutes later, the anonymous witness went to his balcony and saw Deputy Pratt standing on his balcony below. The anonymous witness then asked Deputy Pratt "Is everything okay officer?" after which Deputy Pratt said "Shut the fuck up and get back inside. I don't want to talk to you." The anonymous witness then clarified that he was not Mr. CM, and Deputy Pratt again stated "Shut the fuck up and get back inside. I don't want to talk to you." At this point, the anonymous witness called 911. The anonymous witness' 911 call stated: "I heard a loud altercation between some people in my apartment complex and I'd like to report it... It just sounded real loud and lots of yelling... It seems like it was pretty heated. I don't know if it was between two people, different tenants within the apartment. just want to make sure that whoever was yelling that there's more people on way because it sounded very heated, and I don't know if one of the officers on duty resides here. I just want to make sure there is [sic] enough people to segregate both the parties because it sounded pretty bad... And I wish for this to remain anonymous. If this officer lives in this apartment, I don't wish for him to know that this contact is me because I got to live with this guy... This guy seems pretty hotheaded." Deputy Pratt also called 911 and gave the following account: "I'd like to complain about a neighbor and his wife fighting above me... I'm a deputy sheriff too, I'm off duty. I'm trying to watch my movie and relax and these guys are up there fighting and it sounds like they are throwing shit around and beatin,' you know. [Dispatcher asks: "It is physical?"] I don't know. I went up there and tried talking to them and said, `Hey, you know, can you keep it FQR CfTY SER4'ICES V1SIT DenuerGoa.org 311

- 9 - down and...let us all be,' and he started yelling at me and kicked me. [Dispatcher asks: `He kicked you?'] Yeah... I just want to make sure that his wife is okay and that he is not up there beating his wife." APD responded to the incident and interviewed all of the parties. After this investigation, APD concluded that the noises were Mr. CM pounding on the floor, and not a domestic disturbance. Although no one was arrested, the responding APD sergeant cautioned Deputy Pratt about taking similar action in the future. The sergeant "painted out to [Deputy Pratt] the issues of being emotionally involved with a dispute and choosing to handle it himself." The responding APD sergeants report of June 8, 2014 indicates the following: "I knocked on the door of [Deputy Pratt's apartment] and identified myself as a police sergeant... I asked Mr. Pratt to come to the door. A short time later I was met by Christopher Pratt... He was wearing a t-shirt and sweatpants.. Mr. Pratt identified himself as a 10 year veteran of the Denver Sheriff's Department. He was home throughout the day. His first communication with his neighbor...was at approximately 5:00 pm. Chris was playing Play Station on his TV in the living room. His neighbor above him began pounding on the floor. Chris realized that the man may have been complaining about the loud volume and he turned down the TV. He did not have any other contact with the man until approximately 10:00 pm. At that time, Chris could hear the man and a woman arguing loudly. He said that they regularly argue at night and normally they are above his daughter's room. Chris could not understand what was being said due to muffling from the floor. The arguing was coming from inside the apartment and sounded like a domestic disturbance. Chris said he wished to talk to the neighbor instead of involving the police so he went upstairs and 'banged' on the door. Chris described the 'bang' as hitting the door with an open palm. He said that all his neighbors know he is a law enforcement officer because he wears his uniform to and from work. He said that he yelled at the man to 'knock off' the noise. Additionally, he displayed his Denver Sheriff Office badge indicating he was a Sheriff's Deputy. He said that the man opened the door and they exchanged words. The man kicked at him as he was standing in the threshold of the door. He said he did not make entry into the apartment. When the man shut the door on Chris, the door hit him. Both Chris and the man told each other that they were contacting the police. Chris said he went straight home and called police. He then went to his porch and smoked a cigarette. While on the porch, he heard a male voice above him ask `Officer, is everything alright?'. Chris thought it was the person he had just engaged and told the man to leave him alone (,..asked [Chris] if he called his neighbor a 'fat fuck.' Chris admitted calling the man that name after he shut the door on him." FOR Cf1Y SERVICES VISIT DenuerGou.org 311

-10- On the following day, June 9, 2014, Deputy Pratt filed a complaint with the apartment complex's leasing manager, LH. The leasing manager was subsequently interviewed by IAB and stated that there had never been any issues reported to her regarding Deputy Pratt and the Ms. At her IAB interview, LH stated that Deputy Pratt came into her office on June 9, 2014 to tell her that there had been an exchange between himself and Mr. CM, and that the Ms were being disruptive and not respectful of Deputy Pratt's apartment. LH then gave the Ms a Demand for Compliance or Possession complaint and affixed it to their door. The complaint stated that "Resident is disturbing neighbors by slamming doors and yelling in the apartment between 2-3 am on June 9, 2014. Resident is not keeping noise to a reasonable volume during quiet hours.i3 Deputy Pratt was interviewed by IAB on August 06, 2014 and December 02, 2014. Deputy Pratt stated that he often heard the Ms upstairs screaming, yelling, and pounding the walls, sometimes until 3:00 a.m. Deputy Pratt stated that the Ms' yelling and screaming had been a "daily occurrence" for the approximate one-year time period he had lived in the apartment. The IAB interviewer asked Deputy Pratt if he had ever notified APD about noise complaints coming from the Ms' apartment prior to this incident, and Deputy Pratt replied in the negative. Deputy Pratt stated that, prior to this incident, he also had never made any noise complaints about the Ms to the leasing manager of the apartment complex. Deputy Pratt told IAB that, on June 8, 2014, he was in his apartment talking on the telephone when he heard noises coming from the Ms' apartment. Deputy Pratt stated in his first interview that he went upstairs to the Ms' apartment to ask them to keep the noise level down, to see if everything was okay, and to see if there was an "amicable" way for them to resolve this issue. Deputy Pratt stated that he was dressed in plain civilian clothes, wearing a hooded sweatshirt, and identified himself as a sheriff deputy only by displaying his badge to Mr. CM. When asked what his intention was for displaying his badge, Deputy Pratt stated that "I wasn't even thinking. don't know why I did it. I know I made a mistake." When asked whether Deputy Pratt was aware of Departmental policy about identifying himself as a deputy sheriff, Deputy Pratt stated that he was aware of the policy. Deputy Pratt stated, "I know that I'm not supposed to identify myself as an officer unless I'm on duty or under the scope of my duty." Deputy Pratt told IAB that when Mr. CM opened the door, he was in his undennrear, and appeared intoxicated. Deputy Pratt indicated that he did not ask Mr. CM if he had been drinking, was not sure if Mr. CM had any medical conditions, and did not recall smelling alcohol on Mr. CM's breath. Deputy Pratt stated that Mr. CM was screaming at him, and "kinds kicked at me and slammed the door at the same time and I just instinctively put my hand on the door just to make sure that [Mrs. SM] was okay." Deputy Pratt admitted to calling Mr. CM a "fat fuck." Deputy Pratt stated that, after Mr. CM shut the door, Deputy Pratt returned to his apartment and called APD to report an incident of domestic violence with his neighbors. IAB asked Deputy Pratt whether he had any indication of any physical violence or domestic violence on the night in question, and Deputy Pratt stated that "the only thing that caused me to believe anything like that would be possibly happening was the stomping and the banging and slamming of things upstairs. But I never heard anything like `You're hitting me,' you know, never heard her actually say anything or actually heard him say anything." Deputy Pratt further 3 LH acknowledged that the complaint contained the incorrect date, but stated that the information on the complaint would have been information provided by Deputy Pratt. FOR CITY SEAb'ICES VISIT DenverGov.or~ 311

Deputy Christopher Pratt, S06o35-11- stated, "If I had actually thought that it was an actual domestic violence I would have called the cops immediately at that point. I wanted to just make sure that nothing was going on." Deputy Pratt was asked about the difference among his first IAB interview, the police report, and the 911 call, as it pertained to relating to whether or not Mr. CM actually kicked Deputy Pratt. In the police report and the first IAB interview, Deputy Pratt stated that Mr. CM "kicked at" Deputy Pratt; however, in Deputy Pratt's 911 call, Deputy Pratt stated that Mr. CM kicked him, and responded "yeah" to the dispatcher's clarifying question as to whether or not physical contact was actually made. When asked in his second IAB interview to explain this difference, Deputy Pratt told IAB that he was "just frustrated and wanted to get the incident taken care of." Deputy Pratt later confirmed that Mr. CM never made any physical contact with Deputy Pratt when he "kicked at" Deputy Pratt. Mr. CM and Mrs. SM were also interviewed by IAB. Throughout his interview, Mr. CM repeated the sentiment that he did not want this incident to go any further than the 911 call and that he did not want Deputy Pratt to get in any more trouble. Mr. CM stated that his primary reason for not calling DSD IAB and filing a complaint, as APD had requested, was that he feared that Deputy Pratt would retaliate against him and his wife by filing additional complaints to the leasing office. Mr. CM feared eviction as a result of Deputy Pratt's potential filing of frivolous complaints about noise and/or making false accusations of domestic violence. Mrs. SM told IAB that she was scared throughout this incident, stating "This was pretty scary....what I'm really more concerned about was the fallout from all of this. It really, really stressed out my husband so much that the next day, when he gat home from work, he was just literally shaking all evening. And I was scared." Mrs. SM further stated "We were afraid because we figured that [if] this guy who was a police officer could lie, then these people would come up next time with his gun or something. So we were really scared to do anything further. Um, so that's why we didn't call [IAB] because we were afraid that he might do something even worse. You know, police are supposed to be honest, not lie about things like that. So, we didn't call. But, my husband has been so stressed out since that, it's like, post traumatic stress disorder." Based on the review of the record, a preponderance of the evidence establishes the following acts of misconduct in violation of the following departmental rules and policies. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS Career Service Rules 16-60 A, Neglect of Dutv: L, Failure to observe written departmental or agency regulations, policies or rules, as it pertains to DSD RR-300.19.1, Disobedience of Rule, as it pertains to Department Order 2000.11, Exercise of Authority as Peace Officers DSD Department Order 2000.11 clearly states that deputies "are specifically authorized by Denver's Executive Director of Safety to exercise their authority as a peace officer to stop suspects or effect arrests while on duty, in uniform, and within the City and County of Denver in order to render aid or assistance when requested by any member of the Denver Police Department (DPD)... [or] when acting as a result of exigent circumstances." The policy is also "not intended to convey the responsibility for general law enforcement authority to deputies." Moreover, the policy expressly prohibits DSD deputies from engaging in "the exercise of any authority as a peace officer while off duty except as specifically authorized [by secondary FOR CITY S:RYICES VISIT DenuerGou.org 311

-12- employment]." Lastly, DSD Department Order 2000.11 also prohibits "[t]he exercise of any authority as a peace officer regarding a deputy's personal disputes or disputes involving family, neighbors, or close friends/associ2tes." At the time of the incident, Deputy Pratt was off-duty, in civilian clothing, on unpaid leave from the Department, not engaged in secondary employment, not assisting any member of DPD, and physically located outside of the City and County of Denver. Furthermore, a preponderance of the evidence indicates that there was no instance of domestic violence occurring in the Ms' household, and therefore no exigent circumstances present. Rather, by a preponderance, the evidence shows that Deputy Pratt was angry that Mr. CM had stomped on the floor, and chase to respond by repeatedly pounding on the Ms' door, sticking his badge and finger in Mr. CM's face, telling Mr. CM that if he ever stomped on the floor again, Deputy Pratt would have Mr. CM arrested for domestic violence, and calling Mr. CM derogatory names such as "fat fucker," "fat piece of shit," and "fat asshole." Moreover, not only did Deputy Pratt admit to IAB that at the time of the incident, he did not hear anything that would make him think that domestic violence was occurring, he confirmed this, stating "If I had actually thought that it was an actual domestic violence I would have called the cops immediately at that point." Additionally, no other witness corroborated this claim, and the APD's investigation likewise determined that the noises Deputy Pratt heard were not the result of a domestic disturbance. Additionally, Deputy Pratt was not engaged in secondary employment at the time, but rather was home in his apartment. Lastly, Deputy Pratt was engaged in a personal dispute involving his neighbor aver noise complaints. By brandishing his DSD badge and threatening to have Mr. CM arrested for alleged conduct occurring in Arvada, during the course of a personal dispute with his neighbor, while off-duty, in civilian clothing, on unpaid leave from the Department, not engaged in secondary employment, not assisting any member of DPD or responding to an exigent circumstance, and physically outside of the City and County of Denver, Deputy Pratt exercised his authority as a peace officer outside the boundaries of policy. Moreover, Deputy Pratt admitted that he knew he was not supposed to identify himself as an officer unless he was on duty or acting in the scope of his duties, which he was not. Under the DSD disciplinary matrix, violations of DSD 300.19.1 falls in Conduct Categories A through F. Pursuant to the matrix, in order to determine the appropriate penalty, the conduct underlying the violation must be analyzed in accordance with Section 15.0, Determining Appropriate Conduct Categories Analysis. In doing so, a reviewer must consider (1) the general nature of the misconduct; (2) how the misconduct relates to the stated mission, vision, and guiding principles of the Department; (3) how the misconduct impacts the operations and image of the Department and its relationship with other agencies or the community; (4) the actual and demonstrable harm or risk of harm involved; (5) whether the misconduct involves an actual and demonstrable impact on deputy, employee, or public safety, or a demonstrable serious risk to deputy, employee, or public safety; (6) whether the violation resulted in actual injury to a deputy, employee, or member of the public, and to what extent; (7) whether the misconduct involved unethical behavior or a serious abuse or misuse of authority; (8) whether the misconduct foreseeably resulted in death or serious bodily injury; (9) whether the misconduct constituted a failure to adhere to any condition of employment as required by contract or mandated by law; (10) whether there is a Rule or Regulation that has a predetermined conduct category that addresses similar misconduct and gives guidance; {11) whether there has been a previous case decided after the implementation of these conduct FdR CITY SERVICESVISIT DenverGay.org 311

-13- principles and disciplinary guidelines that gives guidance to the appropriateness of the conduct category to be chosen. In determining the conduct category, the matrix also requires that the reviewer continually bear in mind that this analysis focuses on the nature of the misconduct and haw it conforms to the specific definitions of conduct categories already established. This analysis should be distinguished from the analysis of mitigating and aggravating factors, which determines the penalties within a given conduct category. Care must also be taken to apply the appropriate conduct category, regardless of the discipline level or penalty that may accompany it. Deputy Pratt's behavior was "a willful and wanton disregard of the Department's guiding principles;... involved] any act which demonstrates a serious lack of the integrity, ethics, or character related to a deputy sheriff's fitness to hold his or her position;... [and] involved] egregious misconduct substantially contrary to the standards of conduct reasonably expected of one whose sworn duty is to uphold the law." Deputy Pratt initiated a conflict with his neighbor by brandishing his badge and threatening to have his neighbor falsely arrested, after which he repeatedly used foul language, intimidated, threatened, and insulted his neighbor. Deputy Pratt used his position as a law enforcement officer and badge to initiate the dispute, and did so without factual basis, jurisdiction, or authority. Deputy Pratt's neighbors were afraid that, should they file a complaint with DSD, Deputy Pratt would further use his position as a law enforcement officer to retaliate against them or have them evicted. Deputy Pratt's neighbors were even fearful that Deputy Pratt might also bring his service weapon to a future dispute. Furthermore, deputies hold a position of trust, a trust bestowed upon them by the Department and the community, and are visible representatives of government. They are given enormous discretion in carrying out their duties discretion which also carries tremendous responsibility. Because of the trust placed in them and the enormity of the discretion and authority granted to them, deputy sheriffs must understand that the community has every right to expect and demand the highest level of accountability from the Department and from individual deputies. By using his position and badge to intimidate and threaten his neighbors during a personal dispute, Deputy Pratt demonstrated a serious lack of the integrity, ethics, or character related to his fitness to held his position as a law enforcement agent entrusted by the public and held to the highest ethical standards. Moreover, Deputy Pratt's conduct constituted a willful and wanton disregard of the Department's guiding principles of respect, fairness, openness, judgment, sensitivity, personal leadership, integrity, accountability, and professionalism. His behavior was entirely antithetical to the Department's mission to protect the community. As such, this rule violation is a Conduct Category F violation. In his approximately 9 years on the Department, Deputy Pratt has three prior instances of discipline, none of which are being considered for purposes of imposing discipline in the instant matter. Therefore, pursuant to the disciplinary matrix, the penalty level is an 8. The presumptive penalty for a Conduct Category F, level 8 offense is termination. The mitigated penalty is a ninety (90) day suspension. There is no aggravated penalty. In analyzing the appropriate penalty, sections 19 through 23 of the disciplinary matrix, pertaining to considering and weighing mitigating and aggravating factors, have been considered. After an examination of the circumstances of the case, nature of the misconduct, and Deputy Pratt's record, there are present mitigating factors that include excellent PEPRs, history with the Department, and lack of significant disciplinary history compared to his years of service. FOR CITY SERVICES VISIT DenuerGou.org 311

Deputy Christopher Pratt, So6035 S2014-D209 Disciplinary Determination -14- Additionally, Deputy Pratt provided some mitigating material that was considered in the case, including commendations and additional personal considerations. However, aggravating factors are also present. Deputy Pratt's misconduct jeopardized the Department's relationship with the public and other agencies in that it affected the Department's relationship and professional image with his neighbors as well as with APD, who counseled Deputy Pratt against taking action of this nature in the future, and reported him to IAB. This effect of Deputy Pratt's misconduct also constituted actual and demonstrable prejudice to the Department. By initiating a dispute, brandishing his badge, making a false police report, intimidating his neighbors, and threatening to have his neighbor falsely arrested, Deputy Pratt also created an actual and demonstrable legal or financial risk to the Department and City. Certain acts of misconduct are so serious that the appropriate penalty is dismissal. This may result from the severity of the act or acts, or from the damage the misconduct causes to the Department or public. Dismissal may be necessary to both punish the deputy sheriff and protect the public and the Department from the possibility of future egregious misconduct. In the same vein, certain acts of misconduct require the penalty of dismissal because they are indicative of a deputy sheriff's inability to continue serving in a position of trust. After considering the above mitigating and aggravating factors, Deputy Pratt's mitigating circumstances were not found to be sufficiently weighty to warrant a penalty other than the presumptive penalty. Accordingly, the presumptive penalty of termination is hereby imposed for violations of CSA rules 16-60A, L, and DSD Rule 300.19.1, as it pertains to D.O. 2000.11. Career Service Rules 16-60 A, Neglect of Duty; M, Threatening, fighting with, intimidating, or abusing employees or officers of the City, or any other member of the public, for any reason; L, Failure to observe written departmental or agencv regulations, policies or rules as it pertains to DSD RR-300.23 Intimidation of Persons Deputy Pratt violated these Career Service Rules and the above Departmental Rule when, by a preponderance of the evidence, he initiated a conflict with his neighbor for personal reasons by repeatedly pounding on his neighbors' door by using a "cop knock," saying "You'd better open this door," brandishing his badge, threatening to have Mr. CM falsely arrested, and repeatedly calling Mr. CM derogatory names such as "fat fucker," "fat piece of shit," and "fat asshole." Deputy Pratt also placed his hand on his neighbors' door to stop it from closing, which caused Mr. CM to believe that Deputy Pratt was attempting to enter his apartment. Mr. CM called 911 and reported being threatened, and told IAB that he did not want to report Deputy Pratt for fear of future retaliation by either eviction or additional false accusation of domestic violence. Mrs. SM likewise reported that both she and Mr. CM were scared and stressed as a result of Deputy Pratt's actions, and indicated that they were afraid to report Deputy Pratt, "because we were afraid that he might do something even worse," such as "came up next time with his gun or something." The Ms' fears were justified, as the initial 911 call made by Deputy Pratt included allegations of domestic violence and an assault that he knew to be false at the time he called. The anonymous witness also told APD that he heard Deputy Pratt knocking on the Ms' door in a forceful manner, and repeatedly telling Mr. CM to "get out here." Furthermore, Deputy Pratt also intimidated the anonymous witness by telling him, after he identified himself and asked if everything was okay, to "shut the fuck up and get back inside." The anonymous witness also called 911 and described the "yelling" as "very heated," requested that the police come to segregate both parties "because it sounded pretty bad," and indicated that he wished to remain FQR CfTY SERVICES VISR DenyerGau.org 311

-15- anonymous, because "this officer.sounds pretty hotheaded." Deputy Pratt therefore "intimidate[d]...[multiple] persons] for personal reasons under the color of authority." Under the DSD disciplinary matrix, violations of DSD Rule 3D0.23 falls only into Conduct Category E. Therefore, pursuant to the matrix, DSD Rule 300.23 is a Rule or Regulation that has apre-determined conduct category. As Deputy Pratt has no prior instances of misconduct that count for purposes of imposing discipline in the instant matter, the discipline level would be a level 6. A Conduct Category E, level 6 violation carries a presumptive penalty of thirty (30) days suspension, a mitigated penalty of eighteen (18) to twenty-two (22) days suspension, and an aggravated penalty of thirty-eight (38) to forty-two (42) days suspension. However, pursuant to Section 25.0 of the matrix, Special Circumstances, the matrix recognizes that, on limited occasions, there will be extraordinary circumstances that would justify a penalty less than or greater than that allowed under the matrix. The authority to do so is within the sound discretion of the reviewer and is reasonable and necessary to avoid injustice. The reasoning far this departure is that a properly functioning matrix system cannot be so rigidly applied as to mandate a certain sanction or limit a certain sanction where doing so would lead to an unjust result or fail to reflect the totality of the particular circumstances. In the event of extraordinary aggravation, the facts and circumstances of a particular case could warrant dismissal as an appropriate penalty, regardless of whether dismissal is the presumptive or aggravated penalty specified in the matrix for the violation. In order to impose a penalty greater than the maximum penalty called for in the matrix, it must be concluded that the matrix fails to appropriately address the conduct or issues specific to the case. This could include a factor in aggravation that is so extraordinary that the maximum penalty called for in the matrix would be inadequate to effect the purposes of discipline or to reflect the gravity of the circumstances, even if the maximum penalty were to be imposed. One of the factors to consider include commission of an act or acts which call into serious question the deputy sheriff's trustworthiness and/or integrity so as to interfere with the continued performance of his or her assigned duties and responsibilities, or which demonstrate a serious lack of the ethics, character, orjudgment necessary to hold the position of deputy sheriff. In examining the totality of the circumstances, Deputy Pratt's intimidating behavior under color of authority was "a willful and wanton disregard of the Department's guiding principles;...involve[d] any act which demonstrates a serious lack of the integrity, ethics, or character related to a deputy sheriff's fitness to hold his or her position;...[and~ involved] egregious misconduct substantially contrary to the standards of conduct reasonably expected of one whose sworn duty is to uphold the law." Deputy Pratt intimidated his neighbors in multiple ways, to such an extent that two of his neighbors called 911 and asked for police intervention. Deputy Pratt so intimidated his neighbors that they were afraid to report his behavior to IAB, for fear that he would use his position to evict his neighbors, falsely accuse Mr. CM of domestic violence, or brandish his service weapon during any future disputes. Deputy Pratt's behavior therefore caused fear that he would take members of the public's home, liberty, and/or life. Deputy PratYs trustworthiness and integrity were called into serious question by this incident. He claimed to have initiated the dispute because of a concern for domestic violence occurring; however, a preponderance of the evidence indicates that no such incident ever occurred. A preponderance of the evidence shows that Deputy Pratt called 911 and "complain[ed] about a neighbor and his wife fighting above me...these guys are up there fighting and it sounds like FOR CITY SERVICESVISIT DenverGoY.org 311

52014-0209 Disciplinary Determination -16- they are throwing shit around and beatin', you know... I went up there and tried talking to them and said, `Hey, you know, can you keep it down'... and he started yelling at me and he kicked me...i just want to make sure that his wife is okay and that he is not up there beating his wife." Deputy Pratt also told responding APD officers that he "could hear the man and a woman arguing loudly...[but] could not understand what was being said due to the muffling from the floor. The arguing was coming from inside the apartment and sounded like a domestic disturbance." However, Deputy Pratt himself later admitted to IAB that he didn't have any indication of any physical violence or domestic violence occurring, and the "the only thing that caused [him] to believe anything like that would be possibly happening was the stomping and the banging and slamming of things upstairs. But I never heard anything like 'You're hitting me,' you know, I never heard her say anything or actually heard him say anything." Furthermore, Deputy Pratt admitted to an interaction earlier that day where someone had stomped on the floor and he interpreted that stomping to mean a request for Deputy Pratt to turn down his music. Therefore, it is unreasonable to believe that, a few hours later, Deputy Pratt would interpret the same stomping to be indicia of domestic violence, and would not understand it to be a communication to turn down the volume, as he had hours earlier. It is also more likely than not that Deputy Pratt did not believe a domestic violence incident to be occurring, given the totality of the circumstances, as he told IAB that the Ms' yelling and screaming had been a "daily occurrence" for the approximate one year time period he lived in the apartment, but he had never made a noise complaint or called APD prior to this incident. Additionally, Deputy Pratt admitted that if he believed there was a domestic dispute, he would have called the police initially. Moreover, the anonymous witness indicated that he had never heard anything from the Ms' apartment that could lead him to believe that there might be domestic violence going on, but was able to hear Deputy Pratt repeatedly pound on the door and initiate the dispute with Mr. CM, as well as the conversation that ensued in which Deputy Pratt stated "Are you beating your wife? Get out here you fat fuck." Are you beating on your floor when I play my music too loud? Get out here you fat asshole." This initially confrontational manner also belies Deputy Pratt's 911 call's stated purpose in going upstairs that is, to ask the Ms to keep the noise level down, to see if everything was okay, and to see if there was an "amicable" way for them to resolve the issue. Instead, it is more likely than not that Deputy Pratt, when calling 911 and informing the dispatcher that he was a deputy sheriff, told the police that he became involved in the incident out of a concern for a potential domestic violence incident in order to mask his inappropriate and intimidating behavior, and so as to be afforded more credibility than Mr. CM, whom he knew was also calling the police. Deputy Pratt was therefore untruthful about his reason for his involvement in the incident, as well as downplayed the extent of his involvement in the incident and failed to report his intimidating behavior, when he told police that he was responding to the Ms' apartment because he was concerned that he heard arguing and "beatin"' noises, to "try talking to" the Ms and say "Hey, you know, can you keep it down." Not only is this in complete contrast to the anonymous witness and Ms' account of the situation, but also omits Deputy Pratt's intimidating and verbally abusive behavior of both Mr. CM and the anonymous witness. In fact, Deputy Pratt only admitted to calling Mr. CM a "fat fuck" after being asked by the responding APD sergeant, and falsely stated that he only called Mr. CM a "fat fuck" after Mr. CM shut the door on Deputy Pratt. Deputy Pratt therefore demonstrated a serious lack of integrity, ethics, and character not only by intimidating his neighbors in such a manner in the first place, but by also doing so under color of authority, and later neglecting to report his intimidating, inflammatory, and inappropriate behavior to the police, while misrepresenting facts as it suited him. Such behavior is antithetical to the community and Department's high expectations of their law enforcement officers. FOR C(TY SERVICES VISIT DenuerGou.org 311

-17- Furthermore, deputies hold a position of trust, a trust bestowed upon them by the Department and the community, and are visible representatives of government. They are given enormous discretion in carrying out their duties discretion which also carries tremendous responsibility. Because of the trust placed in them and the enormity of the discretion and authority granted to them, deputy sheriffs must understand that the community has every right to expect and demand the highest level of accountability from the Department and from individual deputies. By using his position and badge to intimidate and threaten his neighbors during a personal dispute, to such an extent as they were afraid for their home, liberty, and/or lives, Deputy Pratt demonstrated a serious lack of the integrity, ethics, or character related to his fitness to hold his position as a law enforcement agent entrusted by the public and held to the highest ethical standards. Moreover, Deputy Pratt's conduct constituted a willful and wanton disregard of the Department's guiding principles of honesty, respect, fairness, openness, judgment, sensitivity, personal leadership, integrity, accountability, and professionalism. His behavior was entirely antithetical to the Department's mission to protect the community. For the reasons above, application of Section 25.0 of the matrix, Special Circumstances, extraordinary aggravation, is appropriate, given the totality of the circumstances and commission of an act or acts which call into serious question the deputy sheriff's trustworthiness and/or integrity so as to interfere with the continued performance of his or her assigned duties and responsibilities, or which demonstrate a serious lack of the ethics, character, or judgment necessary to hold the position of deputy sheriff. In applying extraordinary aggravation, the appropriate penalty reasonable and necessary to avoid injustice and to reflect the gravity of the circumstances is termination, as the matrix's potential penalties for a Conduct Category E violation fail to appropriately address the conduct or issues specific to the case. Sections 19 through 23 of the disciplinary matrix, pertaining to considering and weighing mitigating and aggravating factors, have been considered. After an examination of the circumstances of the case, nature of the misconduct, and Deputy Pratt's record, there are present mitigating factors that include excellent PEPRs, history with the Department, and lack of significant disciplinary history compared to his years of service. Additionally, Deputy Pratt provided some mitigating material that was considered in the case, including commendations and additional personal considerations. However, aggravating factors are also present. Deputy Pratt's misconduct jeopardized the Departments relationship with the public and other agencies in that it affected the Department's relationship and professional image with his neighbors as well as with APD, who were informed of Deputy Pratt's intimidating behavior and reported him to IAB. This effect of Deputy Pratt's misconduct also constituted actual and demonstrable prejudice to the Department. By initiating a dispute, brandishing his badge, making a false police report, intimidating his neighbors, and threatening to have his neighbor falsely arrested, Deputy Pratt also created an actual and demonstrable legal or financial risk to the Department and City. After considering the above mitigating and aggravating factors, Deputy PratYs mitigating circumstances were not found to be sufficiently weighty to warrant a penalty other than termination. Accordingly, the presumptive penalty of termination is hereby imposed for violations of CSA rules 16-60A, L, and DSD Rule 300.23. for CITY S~AVICES VISR DenuerGau.org 311

September 23, 2415-18- Career Service Rules 16-60 A, Neglect of Duty; E, Anv act of dishonesty; L, Failure to observe written departmental or agency regulations, policies or rules as it pertains to DSD RR-200.4.2 Commission of a Deceptive Act, and as it pertains to DSD RR-300.11.1 Conduct Prohibited by Law, as it pertains to Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-1'F1, False Reporting to Authorities Deputy Pratt violated these departmental rules when, by a preponderance of the evidence, he "willfully, intentionally, [and] knowingly c~mmit[ted] a materially deceptive act, including... departing from the truth verbally, making a false report, or intentionally omitting information" in connection with the investigation of this incident. Deputy Pratt also, by a preponderance of the evidence, violated Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 18-5-111, False Reporting to Authorities, when he "ma[de] a report...to law enforcement authorities of a crime or other incident within their official concern when he knows that it did not occur..." Deputy Pratt called 911 and stated that he wanted to complain about a neighbor and his wife fighting above him. He told the 911 dispatcher "I'm a deputy sheriff too, I'm off duty," so as to afford himself more credibility than his neighbor, whom he knew was also calling the police. He told the 911 dispatcher "these guys are up there fighting and it sounds like they are throwing shit around and beatin', you know." The 911 dispatcher then asked Deputy Pratt if the argument was physical, and Deputy Pratt stated that he didn't know, that he "went up there and tried talking to them and said, 'Hey, you know, can you keep it down, and...let us all be," after which Mr. CM "started yelling at me and kicked me." The 911 dispatcher then asked the clarifying question "He kicked you?" and Deputy Pratt responded "Yeah." Deputy Pratt then told 911 that he "just wanted] to make sure that his wife is okay and that he is not up there beating his wife." Deputy Pratt likewise told IAB that when he heard noises coming from the Ms' apartment, his purpose in going upstairs was to ask them to keep the noise level down, to see if everything was okay, and to see if there was an "amicable" way for them to resolve the issue. However, a preponderance of the evidence indicated that, at the time at which he called 911, Deputy Pratt knew that Mrs. 5M was okay and was not being beaten, and that no domestic violence was occurring at that time. Both Mr. CM and Mrs. SM indicated that they were getting ready for bed, and the anonymous witness stated that he never heard any noises indicative of domestic violence coming from their apartment. Furthermore, Mr. CM had stomped on the floor earlier that day, and Deputy Pratt understood that to be a request to turn the volume down, and did not attribute that noise to an incident of domestic violence. Along these same lines, by starting the interaction with statements like "you fat asshole," it seems unlikely that Deputy Pratt's intent was to seek an "amicable" resolution. The anonymous witness' version of events supports also the fact that Deputy Pratt knew that the stomping on the floor at approximately 10:00 pm that evening was another request to turn the volume down, and not domestic violence, as the anonymous witness heard Deputy Pratt say "Are you beating on your floor when I play my music too loud? Get out here you fat asshole." Moreover, Mr. CM told IAB that Deputy Pratt confronted him at the door by flashing his badge and sticking a finger in his face, and telling him that, if Mr. CM ever stomped on the floor again, Deputy Pratt would have Mr. CM arrested far domestic violence. Additionally, Deputy Pratt admitted at his pre-disciplinary meeting that he placed his hand on the Ms' door to stop it from closing because Mrs. SM was coming into view and he wanted to confirm that she was okay. A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Deputy Pratt was able to observe Mrs. SM and confirm that she was okay FOR CITY SER4'ICES VISR DenverGov.org 311

-19- prior to the door closing and prior to Deputy Pratt calling 911 to report an incident of domestic violence. Importantly, Deputy Pratt himself, when asked if he had any indication of any physical violence or domestic violence on the night in question, stated that "the only thing that caused me to believe anything like that would be possibly happening was the stomping and the banging and slamming of things upstairs. But I never heard anything like 'You're hitting me,' you know, never heard her actually say anything or actually heard him say anything." Deputy Pratt further stated, "If I had actually thought it was an actual domestic violence I would have called the cops immediately at that point. I just wanted to make sure that nothing was going on." Furthermore, when APD responded, Deputy Pratt told APD that he "could hear the man and a woman arguing loudly," but "could not understand what was being said due to muffling from the floor. The arguing was coming from inside the apartment and sounded like a domestic disturbance." This is wholly contradictory to Deputy Pratt's later statement to IAB that he could not hear Mr. CM or Mrs. SM "actually say anything," and was only able to hear "stomping and banging and slamming of things upstairs." In reporting to the 911 dispatcher and APD that a domestic violence incident was possibly occurring, it is more likely than not that Deputy Pratt "willfully, intentionally, [and] knowingly committed] a materially deceptive act, including... departing from the truth verbally" in connection with the investigation of this incident. Deputy Pratt also, by a preponderance of the evidence, violated Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 18-8-111, False Reporting to Authorities, when he "ma[de] a report...to law enforcement authorities of a crime or other incident within their official concern when he knows that it did not occur." Additionally, Deputy Pratt affirmed to the 911 dispatcher that Mr. CM had kicked him. This was not a miscommunication or misunderstanding, as the 911 dispatcher specifically asked Deputy Pratt "He kicked you?" and Deputy Pratt responded "Yeah." However, in the police report and Deputy Pratt's first IAB interview, Deputy Pratt stated that Mr. CM "kicked ay' him, and never made any physical contact with him. A preponderance of the evidence, and Deputy Pratt's own later admissions, indicate that Mr. CM did not kick Deputy Pratt. The evidence also demonstrates that this was not a miscommunication or misunderstanding, as Deputy Pratt told IAB that he informed the 911 dispatcher that Mr. CM had kicked him because he was "just frustrated and wanted to get the incident taken care of." This indicates an intent on the part of Deputy Pratt to expedite and direct the response by adding in an additional false potentially criminal element to the incident. In reporting to the 911 dispatcher that he had been kicked, it is more likely than not that Deputy Pratt "willfully, intentionally, [and] knowingly committed] a materially deceptive act, including... departing from the truth verbally" in connection with the investigation of this incident. Deputy Pratt also, by a preponderance of the evidence, violated Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 18-8-111, False Reporting to Authorities, when he "ma[de] a report...to law enforcement authorities of a crime or other incident within their official concern when he knows that it did not occur." Honesty is of paramount importance as it pertains to the community's highest expectations of its law enforcement officers. It is a guiding principle, in fact, the primary guiding principle, of the Denver Sheriff Department. Honesty is defined as "being truthful and forthright in everything we do and say." Honesty is expected of each individual deputy. Avoiding any deception or misrepresentation and telling the complete truth are necessary to ensure honesty in the Department. There is no basis for respect or trust without honesty. If the Department fails to demand honesty, it breaks faith with the public and its own employees. No complaint can be fully investigated, no finding can be legitimately reached, and no discipline can be fairly imposed without honesty. FOR CITY SERVICES VI51T DenYerGov.org 311

S2o14-0209 Disciplinary Determination -20- Instances of untruthfulness that impact investigations or official proceedings and amount to a willful disregard of the Department's Guiding Principles of Integrity, Honesty, and Accountability have been assigned the harshest available punishment under the matrix that of a presumptive termination. Under these circumstances, even in instances where the Deputy later admits his untruthfulness, the Department must be cognizant that a deputy's failure to be truthful may need to end that deputy's career. Untruthfulness of the type contemplated in Commission of a Deceptive Act justifiably raises questions of the deputy's truthfulness and integrity, and impacts the deputy's ability to perform his duties and responsibilities with regard to the criminal justice system. The assignment of a presumptive penalty of termination ensures accountability for deputies who make materially false statements in connection with any investigation or any judicial or administrative proceeding. This recognizes that certain rights beget certain responsibilities. Under the DSD disciplinary matrix, a violation of DSD Rule 200.4.2 is apre-determined Conduct Category F violation. Deputy Pratt failed to observe written departmental or agency rules, policies and procedures by his commission of a deceptive act in connection with the police investigation in this case. This behavior involves a "violation of law, rule, [and] policy which (...] constitutes a willful and wanton disregard of department guiding principles; [andj involves [an] act which demonstrates a serious lack of the integrity, ethics [and] character related to a deputy sheriff's fitness to hold [his] position; [and] involves egregious misconduct substantially contrary to the standards of conduct reasonably expected of one whose sworn duty is to uphold the law." As such, this rule violation is a Conduct Category F violation. A Conduct Category F violation by a deputy is always classified as discipline level 8, the highest level of discipline. Thus the penalty level, pursuant to the disciplinary matrix, would be 8. The mitigated penalty is ninety (90) days suspension, the presumptive penalty is dismissal, and there is no aggravated penalty for discipline level 8 conduct violations. As it pertains to Conduct Prohibited by Law, the Department of Safety and the DSD need to be able to discipline deputies for engaging in conduct that is prohibited by criminal statutes or other laws. A primary reason for that need is that Sheriff personnel are employed in large part to enforce custodial rules and protect Constitutional rights. Consequently, conduct by deputies that violates the law is totally antithetical to a deputy's role in society and diminishes the public image of law enforcement officers in general. Engaging in conduct that violates a law, particularly a criminal law, also negatively affects a deputy's ability to perform his job functions. Under the matrix, RR-300.11.1 is intended to apply to a wide range of conduct prohibited by local ordinances and State or Federal statutes. This conduct includes, but is not limited to, criminal, civil, traffic, or other violations of law, and may range from minor infractions to extremely serious misconduct. As such, it is unreasonable to attempt to pre-determine what conduct category would apply when a violation of 300.11.1 is sustained. Therefore, 300.11.1 is assigned to every conduct category in the matrix. A reviewer must analyze the conduct underlying the violation in accordance with Section 15.0, Determining Appropriate Conduct Categories Analysis, in order to determine the appropriate presumptive penalty. As part of that analysis, the reviewer must determine, among other things, the general nature and seriousness of the misconduct, how the misconduct relates to the guiding principles of the Department, and how it otherwise meets the definition of a specific conduct category. In doing so, the reviewer should determine whether the alleged violation involves any of the following, which are FOR CITY SERVICES V151T Den~erGo~.org 311

-21 - considered by the Department to be some of the serious departures from Department standards: (a) Conduct involving dishonesty, a serious lack of integrity or other forms of moral turpitude; or (b) Conduct involving assaultive or threatening behavior. Pursuant to the matrix, and as prescribed above, in order to determine the appropriate penalty, the conduct underlying the violation must be analyzed in accordance with Section 15.0 of the matrix, as previously stated. In determining the conduct category, the matrix also requires that the reviewer continually bear in mind that this analysis focuses on the nature of the misconduct and how it conforms to the specific definitions of conduct categories already established. This analysis is distinguished from the analysis of mitigating and aggravating factors, which determines the penalties within a given conduct category. As previously stated, certain acts of misconduct are so serious that the appropriate penalty is dismissal. This may result from the severity of the act or acts, or from the damage the misconduct causes to the Department or public. Deputy Pratt's behavior involved a "willful, intentional, or knowing" false report of domestic violence and assault to the authorities, in violation of state criminal law. As such, it was "a willful and wanton disregard of the Department's guiding principles;...involve[d] any act which demonstrates a serious lack of the integrity, ethics, or character related to a deputy sheriff's fitness to hold his or her position;...[and] involved] egregious misconduct substantially contrary to the standards of conduct reasonably expected of one whose sworn duty is to uphold the law." Deputy Pratt's conduct likewise constituted a serious departure from Department standards, in that it involved dishonesty, a serious lack of integrity or other forms of moral turpitude, as well as assaultive or threatening behavior. A preponderance of the evidence shows that Deputy Pratt initiated a conflict with his neighbor by brandishing his badge and threatening to have his neighbor falsely arrested, after which he repeatedly used foul language, intimidated, threatened, and insulted his neighbor. Given the evidence and the totality of the circumstances, it is more likely than not that Deputy Pratt behaved in such a manner because he was frustrated with being told to turn down his music, and not because he believed that an incident of domestic violence was occurring. However, despite this, Deputy Pratt engaged in deceptive conduct multiple times by informing the 911 dispatcher and responding APD officers that he believed domestic violence to be occurring in the apartment above him. Deputy Pratt also falsely informed the 911 dispatcher that Mr. CM had kicked him, because he was "just frustrated and wanted to get the incident taken care of." In doing so, by a preponderance of the evidence, Deputy Pratt committed a Class 3 misdemeanor, False Reporting to Authorities, as well as "willfully, intentionally, or knowingly...depart[ed] from the truth verbally [and] made] a false report [and] intentionally omit[ed] information," in violation of Commission of a Deceptive Act. Deputies hold a position of trust, a trust bestowed upon them by the Department and the community, and are visible representatives of government. They are given enormous discretion in carrying out their duties discretion which also carries tremendous responsibility. Because of the trust placed in them and the enormity of the discretion and authority granted to them, deputy sheriffs must understand that the community has every right to expect and demand the highest level of accountability from the Department and from individual deputies. By using his position and badge to intimidate and threaten his neighbors during a personal dispute, and by subsequently lying to the 911 operator and responding APD officers for his awn personal gain, while informing them that he was a "deputy sheriff, too" in order to gain credibility over his neighbor, Deputy Pratt demonstrated a serious lack of the integrity, ethics, or character related to his fitness to hold his position as a law enforcement agent entrusted by the public and held to FOR CfTV SERVICES VISIT DenuerGay.org 311

-22- the highest ethical standards. Moreover, Deputy Pratt's conduct constituted a willful and wanton disregard of the Department's guiding principles of honesty, respect, fairness, openness, judgment, sensitivity, personal leadership, integrity, accountability, and professionalism. His behavior was entirely antithetical to the Department's mission to protect the community, and expectation of honesty. As such, this rule violation is a Conduct Category F violation. In his approximately 9 years on the Department, Deputy Pratt has three prior instances of discipline, none of which count for purposes of imposing discipline in the instant matter. Therefore, pursuant to the disciplinary matrix, the penalty level is an 8. The presumptive penalty for a Conduct Category F, level 8 offense is termination. The mitigated penalty is a ninety (90) day suspension. There is no aggravated penalty. In analyzing the appropriate penalty for both rule violations, sections 19 through 23 of the disciplinary matrix, pertaining to considering and weighing mitigating and aggravating factors, have been considered. After an examination of the circumstances of the case, nature of the misconduct, and Deputy Pratt's record, there are present mitigating factors that include excellent PEPRs, history with the Department, and lack of significant disciplinary history compared to his years of service. Additionally, Deputy Pratt provided same mitigating material that was considered in the case, including commendations and additional personal considerations. However, aggravating factors are also present. Deputy Pratt's misconduct jeopardized the Department's relationship with the public and other agencies in that it affected the Department's relationship and professional image with his neighbors as well as with APD. Mrs. SM stated "We were afraid because we figured that [ifj this guy who was a police officer could lie, then these people would come up next time with his gun or something." Furthermore, APD found that there had not been an incident of domestic violence, as Deputy Pratt claimed, but rather that the noises were Mr. CM pounding on the floor. This effect of Deputy Pratt's misconduct also constituted actual and demonstrable prejudice to the Department. By initiating a dispute, brandishing his badge, making a false police report, intimidating his neighbors, and threatening to have his neighbor falsely arrested, Deputy Pratt also created an actual and demonstrable legal or financial risk to the Department and City. After considering the above mitigating and aggravating factors, Deputy Pratt's mitigating circumstances were not found to be sufficiently weighty to warrant a penalty other than the presumptive penalty. Accordingly, the presumptive penalty of termination is hereby imposed for violations of CSA rules 16-60A, E, L, and DSD Rules 200.4.2 and 300.11.1 Career Service Rules 16-60 A, Neglect of Duty; L, Failure to observe written departmental or agency regulations, policies or rules as it pertains to DSD RR-300.11.6 Conduct Prejudicial; Z, Conduct Prejudicial Deputy Pratt violated these Career Service and Departmental rules when he demonstrated conduct "that [brought] disrepute on [and] compromised] the integrity of the City [and] the Department [and] conduct unbecoming which caused] harm greater than would reasonably be expected to result..." Deputy Pratt also engaged in conduct that was inconsistent, incompatible, and in conflict with the values established by the OS~, and in doing so, negatively affected its reputation and that of the Departments officers and the law enforcement community in general. His conduct was unbefitting one whose sworn duty it is to provide for the care of individuals entrusted to the FOR CfTY SERVICES V1SIT DenuerGou.org 311

September 23, 2D15-23- Department's care while meeting the highest standards of conduct and professional integrity at all times, as demanded by the public. Deputy Pratt's behavior was particularly egregious. After Mr. CM stomped his foot on the floor in a request for Deputy Pratt to turn dawn his music, just as he had done hours earlier that day, Deputy Pratt chose to grab his badge and go confront Mr. CM at his residence. Deputy Pratt did not approach the interaction calmly and respectfully, intending to ask the Ms to keep the noise level down, see if everything was okay, and see if there was an "amicable" way for them to resolve the issue, as he claimed. Instead, a preponderance of the evidence shows that Deputy Pratt pounded on the Ms' door loud enough for the tenant one floor up to have heard, using what the anonymous witness described as a "very forceful" "cap knock." According to the anonymous witness, Deputy Pratt then stated to Mr. CM "Are you beating on your wife? Get out here you fat fuck. Are you beating on your floor when I play my music too loud? Get out here you fat asshole." The person on the other side of the door then said, "Are you an officer?" The anonymous witness stated he then heard "Get out here you fat fuck." Several minutes later, the anonymous witness went to his balcony and saw Deputy Pratt standing on his balcony below. The anonymous witness then asked Deputy Pratt "Is everything okay officer?" after which Deputy Pratt said "Shut the fuck up and get back inside. I don't want to talk to you." The anonymous witness then clarified that he was not Mr. CM, and Deputy Pratt again stated "Shut the fuck up and get back inside. I don't want to talk to you." At this point, the anonymous witness called 911, and reported that Deputy Pratt "seem[ed] pretty hotheaded," and was afraid to give his identity, because "[i]f this officer lives in this apartment, I don't wish for him to know that this contact is me because I got to live with this guy." The anonymous witness requested police assistance because "[i]t seems like it was pretty heated... I just want to make sure that whoever was yelling that there's more people on the way...i just want to make sure there is [sic] enough people to segregate both the parties because it sounded pretty bad." Mr. CM stated that Deputy Pratt pounded on his door repeatedly, stating "You'd better open this door," which caused Mrs. SM to become frightened. Mr. CM then answered the door, after which Deputy Pratt stuck his badge and a finger in Mr. CM's face, and told Mr. CM that if he ever stomped on the floor again, Deputy Pratt would have Mr. CM arrested for domestic violence. Mr. CM then asked Deputy Pratt if this was a threat, and Deputy Pratt called Mr. CM derogatory names such as "fat fucker," "fat piece of shit," and "fat asshole." Mr. CM then tried to close his door, and Deputy Pratt put his hand on the door to stop the door from closing. Mr. CM likewise called for police assistance after his interaction with Deputy Pratt, and stated: "A guy showed me his badge, threatening me because I pounded my foot because he has loud music going on down below. He's been doing it since he's moved in here. Now he's come up pounding my door because he wouldn't turn his music down. He threatened me, called me a `fat piece of shit,' showed me his badge and stuff like that. He tried coming in my door, pushed my door open... He tried pushing the door open when I tried to close it on him... He threatened me." Although they initially indicated to responding APD officers that they wished to file an internal complaint about Deputy Pratt, the Ms neglected to do so. Although Deputy Pratt reported the incident himself to APD, APD also reported the incident to IAB, and cautioned Deputy Pratt FOR GTV SERVICES VISfT DenuerGou.org 311

-24- against taking similar action in the future. The sergeant "pointed out to [Deputy Pratt] the issues of being emotionally involved with a dispute and choosing to handle it himself." When interviewed by IAB, Mr. CM and Mrs. SM indicated that they did not file a complaint against Deputy Pratt, nor did they wish to pursue a complaint, because they were afraid of the "fallout from all of this" that is, that Deputy Pratt would retaliate against them by filing additional complaints to the leasing office, which could get them evicted; making additional false accusations of domestic violence; or even approaching them with his service weapon at a future interaction. Furthermore, the Ms' opinion of law enforcement was negatively impacted in that they thought if "this guy who was a police officer could lie [even though] police are supposed to be honest, [and] not lie about things like that," they didn't know what else Deputy Pratt could do to them. Lastly, the evidence shows that the Ms were traumatized by this event. Pursuant to the matrix, many different types and severity of misconduct can fall within the definition of Conduct Prejudicial. Therefore, the conduct category (A-F) into which a particular violation will fall will depend upon the specific facts of the case. In deciding whether to sustain a violation of RR-300.11.6, the reviewer must consider the facts underlying the conduct and determine the conduct category into which the violation falls by applying the analysis in Section 15 of the matrix, described above. The resulting conduct category shall then be used in conjunction with the consideration of relevant disciplinary history to determine the presumptive penalty. Thereafter, the normal analysis of considering mitigating and aggravating factors as well as special circumstances must be conducted in order to determine the appropriate penalty. Under the DSD disciplinary matrix, a violation of DSD Rule 300.11.6 falls in all Conduct Categories, A through F. As noted above, pursuant to the matrix, in order to determine the appropriate penalty, the conduct underlying the violation must be analyzed in accordance with Section 15.0, Determining Appropriate Conduct Categories. In determining the conduct category, the matrix also requires that the reviewer continually bear in mind that this analysis focuses on the nature of the misconduct and how it conforms to the specific definitions of conduct categories already established. This analysis should be distinguished from the analysis of mitigating and aggravating factors, which determines the penalties within a given conduct category. Care must also be taken to apply the appropriate conduct category, regardless of the discipline level or penalty that may accompany it. As previously stated, certain acts of misconduct are so serious that the appropriate penalty is dismissal. Certain acts of misconduct require the penalty of dismissal because they are indicative of a deputy sheriff's inability to continue serving in a position of trust. Dismissal may also be necessary because the commission of certain acts of misconduct has caused such damage to the Department that the continuation of employment would prevent the Department from effectively performing its mission in the community or because the retention of the deputy sheriff would constitute deliberate indifference to the duty of the Department to protect the public. Deputy Pratt's behavior was "a willful and wanton disregard of the Department's guiding principles;...involve[d] any act which demonstrates a serious lack of the integrity, ethics, or character related to a deputy sheriff's fitness to hold his or her position;...[and] involved] egregious misconduct substantially contrary to the standards of conduct reasonably expected of one whose sworn duty is to uphold the law." Deputy Pratt's egregious behavior, including the pounding on the door, threats, and false accusations of domestic violence, resulted in instilling FDR C(iY SERVICES VISR DenverGou.org 311

Deputy Christopher Pratt, S06o35-25- fear in Deputy Pratt's neighbors that he would retaliate physically and otherwise against them, including bringing false allegations of domestic violence in direct opposition to his sworn duty to uphold the law. Deputy Pratt used his position as a law enforcement officer and badge to initiate the dispute, and his neighbors were afraid that, should they file a complaint with DSD, Deputy Pratt would further use his position as a law enforcement officer to retaliate against them by having them evicted or arrested. Deputy Pratt's neighbors were even fearful that Deputy Pratt might also bring his service weapon to a future dispute. The Ms' experience with Deputy Pratt made them mistrustful of law enforcement, whom they believed were "supposed to be honest and not lie about things like that." Additionally, APD felt the need to speak to Deputy Pratt and caution him against taking similar action in the future. The sergeant "pointed out to [Deputy Pratt] the issues of being emotionally involved with a dispute and choosing to handle it himself." Therefore, Deputy Pratt's unprofessional behavior was inconsistent, incompatible, and in conflict with the values established by the DSD, and negatively affected its reputation and that of DSD's officers and the law enforcement community in general. Furthermore, deputies hold a position of trust, a trust bestowed upon them by the Department and the community, and are visible representatives of government. They are given enormous discretion in carrying out their duties discretion which also carries tremendous responsibility. Because of the trust placed in them and the enormity of the discretion and authority granted to them, deputy sheriffs must understand that the community has every right to expect and demand the highest level of accountability from the Department and from individual deputies. By using his position and badge to intimidate and threaten his neighbors during a personal dispute, Deputy Pratt demonstrated a serious lack of the integrity, ethics, or character related to his fitness to hold his position as a law enforcement agent entrusted by the public and held to the highest ethical standards. Moreover, Deputy Pratt's conduct constituted a willful and wanton disregard of the Department's guiding principles of honesty, respect, fairness, openness, judgment, sensitivity, personal leadership, integrity, accountability, and professionalism. His behavior was entirely antithetical to the Department's mission to protect the community. As such, this rule violation is a Conduct Category F violation. In his approximately 9 years on the Department, Deputy Pratt has three prior instances of discipline, none of which count for purposes of imposing discipline in the instant matter. Therefore, pursuant to the disciplinary matrix, the penalty level is an 8. The presumptive penalty for a Conduct Category F, level 8 offense is termination. The mitigated penalty is a ninety (90) day suspension. There is no aggravated penalty. In analyzing the appropriate penalty for both rule violations, sections 19 through 23 of the disciplinary matrix, pertaining to considering and weighing mitigating and aggravating factors, have been considered. After an examination of the circumstances of the case, nature of the misconduct, and Deputy Pratt's record, there are present mitigating factors that include excellent PEPRs, history with the Department, and lack of significant disciplinary history compared to his years of service. Additionally, Deputy Pratt provided some mitigating material that was considered in the case, including commendations and additional personal considerations. However, aggravating factors are also present. Deputy Pratt's misconduct jeopardized the Department's relationship with the public and other agencies in that it affected the Department's relationship and professional image with his neighbors as well as with APD. This effect of Deputy Pratt's misconduct also constituted actual and demonstrable prejudice to FUR CRV SEAVILES VISR DenuerGou.org 311

S2014-02D9 Disciplinary Determination -2fithe Department. By initiating a dispute, brandishing his badge, making a false police report, intimidating his neighbors, and threatening to have his neighbor falsely arrested, Deputy Pratt also created an actual and demonstrable legal or financial risk to the Department and City. After considering the above mitigating and aggravating factors, Deputy Pratt's mitigating circumstances were not found to be sufficiently weighty to warrant a penalty other than the presumptive penalty. Accordingly, the presumptive penalty of termination is hereby imposed for violations of CSA rules 16-60A, L, Z, and DSD Rule 300.11.6 SUMMARY OF DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATIONS CSR 16-60 A, F, L, as it pertains to DSD RR-300.19.1, as it pertains to D.O. 2000.11 Conduct Findin Cate o Level Ran e Penalt Neglect of duty; Exercise of authority as Sustained F 8 Presumptive Dismissal eace Officers CSR 1fi-60 A, M, L, as it pertains to DSD RR-300.23 Conduct Findin Cate o Level Ran e Penalt Neglect of duty; Threatening, fighting Special with, intimidating, or Circumstances abusing...any member Sustained E 6 Extraordinary of the public, for any Aggravation reason; Intimidation of Dismissal ersons CSR 16-60 A, E, L, as it pertains to DSD RR-200.4.2; 300.11.1, as it pertains to CRS 18-8- 111 Conduct Finding Category Level Range Penalty Neglect of Duty; Any act of dishonesty; Commission of a deceptive act; Conduct Sustained F 8 Presumptive Dismissal prohibited by law as it pertains to False Reporting to Authorities CSR 16-60 A, L, as it pertains to DSD RR-300.11.6; Z Conduct Finding Category Level Range Penalty Neglect of Duty; Sustained F 8 Presumptive Dismissal Conduct Prejudicial Shann n Elwell Civilian Review Administrator ~/a3/~s Date FOR CITY SERVICES VISR DenuerGo~.org 311

~~ SHERIFF r DEPARTMENT DENVER PUBLIC SAFETY Denver Sheriff Department conau~t eev~ew offtae 1331 Cherokee Street. Sulte 608B Denver, CD 80204 p: 7sagss-saes CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE hereby certify that I have hand-delivered a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Outcome Letter on the 23`~ day of September, 2015 to: Deputy Christopher Pratt S06035 Reference: IAB Case #S2094-0209 's Signafure: