Columbus Police Chief's Emails to Officers about Protests

Emails obtained by JMTN show the communications sent by Chief Thomas Quinlan of the Columbus Division of Police ("CPD") to his officers in the wake of George Floyd's killing and the ensuing protests.

At no point in the nearly two weeks following George Floyd's killing did Chief Quinlan mention George Floyd by name in his division-wide emails, nor did he condemn the behavior of the Minneapolis police officers.

In response to a request for "all emails, memos, or other internal correspondence sent between May 25, 2020 and June 5, 2020 by Chief Quinlan to all sworn employees, or all employees, of the Columbus Division of Police," CPD sent JMTN this twelve-page collection of emails, as well as a statement saying there were no "memos or other correspondence." Accordingly, JMTN believes that this document represents all of the messaging that was sent by Chief Quinlan to his employees as a whole.

May 28, 6:25 PM

The first communication relating to George Floyd, who was killed on May 25 while in the custody of four officers of the Minneapolis Police Department, came on the evening of May 28, more than three days after the killing, and more than two days after footage from the scene made national news. In the email, sent by Chief Quinlan to all CPD employees, Quinlan quotes the following portion of the statement released by the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which Quinlan is a member of:

"MCCA members have worked tirelessly to build trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. What occured in Minneapolis is a sobering reminder of how quickly bad policing can undermine that trust. The law enforcement community must do better and hold ourselves to a higher standard."

Quinlan excluded other portions of the statement [which is available in full here], including the first sentence: "the death of Mr. Floyd is deeply disturbing and should be of concern to all Americans," and the last "we extend our deepest condolences to the Floyd family and will lift them up in prayer during this difficult time."

May 29, 6:58 PM

On the evening of May 29, Quinlan sent another email, in part thanking his officers for "landing on the right side of this escalating and dangerous situation." News reports about the events of the previous night indicates that police used force only after objects were thrown at officers, and buildings were damaged.

A section of this email, titled "Chief's Intent for weekend operations," lists four "enduring goals"

1. "Protect and maintain the health and safety of all persons, to include sworn personnel."

2. "Protect peaceful demonstration and 1st amendment rights for all citizens"

3. "Protect all public and private property"

4. "Respond to all priority calls for service from the public" 

 

Quinlan also stated that "if use of force becomes necessary, all uses of force will be guided by law and division policy and except in cases of personal emergency all uses of force will be at the direction of a division supervisor."

It is not clear whether the pepper spraying of several individuals, including Rep Joyce Beatty, Franklin County Commissioner Kevin Boyce, and Columbus City Council President Shannon Hardin, conducted on the Sunday following the email, was a "personal emergency," or whether it was "at the direction of a division supervisor." It is also not clear how this use of force fits into Quinlan's "enduring goals."

May 31, 3:26 AM

In an email sent early on May 31, Quinlan addressed an email "To All Central Ohio Law Enforcement Who Stood Strong Though Rioting in Columbus." In the email Quinlan referred to "riots in our city later that same day [Thursday] aimed at police actions that originated far outside Columbus." Quinlan went on to say:

"I ask that you not be too quick to judge other groups by their worst examples or too blind to only see policing through best intentions. We all felt we were being persecuted unfairly over these past several days and wanted to speak out or even act out against the apparent injustice we felt. If you felt that then you understand how others might feel similarly as strong in speaking out and even acting out against apparent injustice however it might be defined in their world view."

At no point in the email did Quinlan use the word "protests," or "protestors."

May 31, 9:10 AM

In a separate email sent on the morning of May 31, Quinlan directed that "all sworn personnel are to have their riot gear with them." The email also cancelled several forms of leave for officers, stated "all sworn are scheduled to work 12-hour shifts," and ordered that "all non-covert personnel will work in uniform."

However, the State of Ohio Peace Officer Basic Training Manual on "Civil Disorders" [obtained by WOSU] says that "visible officers should be kept to a minimum and wear their normal uniform" during "lawful demonstrations."

The author of the training manual? Thomas Quinlan.

June 2, 2:14 PM

More than a week after George Floyd's killing, Columbus Police used George Floyd's name in a division-wide email for the first time. The email, sent by Deputy Chief Richard Bash, directed officers to report any injuries they suffered "as a result of the civil disobedience during the protests of the George Floyd death."

The City of Columbus did not respond to a request for comment on this story.

That's just my thought.

Here's our sources, so you can see for yourself:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QJnfXSgAteYqWbWXAaE_TKmFKVN0Lw2W/view?usp=sharing

https://www.majorcitieschiefs.com/pdf/news/news_release_statement_regarding_death_of_george_floyd.pdf

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/crowds-gather-across-columbus-to-protest-police-brutality/

https://fox8.com/news/demonstrators-flood-columbus-streets-to-protest-police-violence-george-floyds-death/

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1267132229077159943

https://www.scribd.com/document/465239354/Ohio-Peace-Officer-Basic-Training-Civil-Disorders

https://radio.wosu.org/post/columbus-police-chief-wrote-book-crowd-dispersal-did-officers-follow-it

Editorial: Unsubstantiated Complaints Against Police Erode Trust: How to Fix It

Since May 25, when George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis Police Department Officers, protests have occurred in every major city -and a lot of smaller cities- throughout the United States. People in foreign countries such as England and France have also been protesting. For the past week, protesters have been making their voice heard about all sorts of issues, such as:

• Use-of-force by police, especially, though not exclusively, against non-white individuals
• Police not being held internally, civilly, or criminally accountable for their misconduct

Some protesters have been speaking up about broader issues, like:

• Transgender rights
• Gender inequality
• Systemic and institutional racism
• Gun violence
• Social inequities relating to COVID-19
• Wealth inequality
• And so much more

Specifically, JMTN would like to discuss issues surrounding police not being held accountable for their misconduct. There have been numerous reports of journalists being arrested, peaceful protesters being sprayed with tear-gas, and, yes, police officers being attacked during this past week. While we understand that everyone, including police officers, are human and make mistakes, there needs to be trust between police departments and the residents they protect and serve. Yet it seems from these protests that that mutual trust doesn't exist right now.

So here's how police departments can get it back.

When confronted with allegations of police misconduct relating to use-of-force during this past week, police chiefs have rightfully said "we're looking into it." Every department has a different process for how they handle misconduct complaints, but many of them all share the same flaw: they aren't transparent.

The trouble is that when police find a complaint to be unsubstantiated, they don't communicate their reasoning to the public. It appears then to be a case of "we've investigated ourselves, and found nothing wrong." Complainants feel like they aren't being listened to. If they submit a complaint, and the department says all is well-and-good, they don't understand. After all, if the citizen knew all the policies that the department found the officer to be following, then they wouldn't have filed a complaint in the first place.

When a citizen files a complaint against an officer, they do it because they truly think that the officer was out-of-line. Even when the officer really did behave properly, and the citizen is wrong, that isn't explained to the public. There's a saying: "you can't choose how I feel." In this case, police departments cannot choose how a complainant feels. When a citizen feels that an officer messed up, even when the officer did everything right, they file a complaint. If the department finds the complaint to be unsubstantiated, it doesn't change how the complainant feels. In turn, the public feels like the department is covering for a "bad cop." This causes trust between the police and the public to erode. And in the case of these latest protests, the trust didn't just erode: it vanished.

Instead, police departments should be transparent with the public about complaints. The department needs to show the complainant evidence that causes them to change their mind, not a closed-doors investigation. That means a public database of complaints, whether unsubstantiated or not, against the department's officers. This database would include:

• The date, nature, and general location of the complaint
• A listing of the officers involved
• The names of the individual's investigating the allegation, and their relationship with the department
• A reason for disposition that is clear, documented, and understandable by both the public and the officers involved
• For example, an unsubstantiated complaint about use-of-force would have an explanation of how the officer's actions complied with the department's use-of-force policy, as well as the text of the policy itself.
• An unsubstantiated complaint about use of bad-language by an officer would have an explanation of why the words the officer used were appropriate, why less-harsh words would not have been appropriate, and the department's policy regarding language used by officers.
• A substantiated complaint would include information about what policy was violated, how the policy was violated, and why the discipline the officer faces is appropriate.

Additionally, there must be an appeals process that affords both the officer and the complainant the ability to have the case re-heard, to include the ability to testify before the investigatory committee about why they believe the initial disposition was inappropriate.

A mechanism must exist for automatically triggering a deeper look at officers who have a certain number of unsubstantiated complaints. While the officer may in fact be entirely upstanding, it's also possible that there's something going on that the review board isn't set up to find. This is important, as Derek Chauvin, the officer who sparked this round of protests, had 24 complaints filed against him during his service with the Minneapolis Police Department. All but one were found to be unsubstantiated. However, the MPD does not make these other 23 records available for public review (JMTN has filed a request with the MPD under Minnesota's FOIA-equivalent for the complaint records of all four officers involved in George Floyd's killing in hopes that they will be disclosed).

While it is possible that Chauvin's previous 23 complaints do not show anything wrong, the public sees the non-disclosure as MPD trying to 'hide something.' This erodes public trust between the department and the residents, which makes things unnecessarily harder for everyone: police officers and citizens.

A simple "we understand your feelings, you're right to feel the way you do, and here's our reasoning" goes a long way to building trust with the public.