DIVISION OF POLICE Intra—Divisional December 26, 2020 TO: Director Ned Pettus, PhD Director of Public Safety FROM: Chief Thomas Quinlan #5000 Chief of Police SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION OF OFFICER ADAM Coy #2275, Zone 4-EMW Sir, Attached is the investigation conducted by the Chain-of-Command as directed by your office, re: IAB #202012 — 1029. Based on the facts of the investigation, | am making the following recommendations regarding this investigation. Please evaluate and classify each specific allegation and additional recommendation below: Focus: Adam Coy #2275, Zone 4-EMW Allegation #1 OFFICER ADAM COY HAS EXHIBITED INCOMPETENCE, GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY, MISFEASANCE, MALFEASANCE, AND NONFEASANCE DURING A NON-EMERGENCY RUN THAT ENDED IN THE DEATH OF ANDRE HILL. Investigator Recommendation: SUSTAINED Policy/Procedure Followed: NIA Rule Violated: 1.04 - Cause for Dismissal Chief's determination: DEPARTMENTAL CHARGES. Corrective Action:Allegation #2 Investigator Recommendation: Policy/Procedure Followed: Rule Violated: Chief's determination: Corrective Action: OFFICER ADAM Coy USED DEADLY FORCE AGAINST ANDRE HILL THAT WAS NOT OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE, WHILE ALSO FAILING TO ACTIVATE HIS BODY CAMERA OR: PROVIDE MEDICAL AID AFTER SHOOTING MR. HILL. SUSTAINED NIA ROC 1.19 - DD 2.01 - USE OF FORCE DEPARTMENTAL CHARGES. Respectfully Submitted, Chief's Signature: homes ake th, Date: 12]26/2020 Tagnaq ‘THOMAS QUINLAN #5000 CHIEF OF POLICEDIVISION OF POLICE Intra—Divisional December 26, 2020 TO: Ned Pettus, PhD, Director of Public Safety FROM: Thomas Quinlan #5000, Chief of Police SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION BY CHAIN-OF-COMMAND, IAB #202012 — 1029 RE: FOCUS OF INVESTIGATION: OFFICER ADAM Coy #2275, ZONE 4 — EMW Investigator: Chief Thomas Quinlan #5000 (assisted by Internal Affairs) Sir, CIRCUMSTANCES OF INCIDENT(S) Officer Coy was dispatched to 1054 Oberlin Drive (P200950809), at 1:37PM, on December 22, 2020. The nature of the call was a non-emergency (645-4545) call from a resident on a suspicious vehicle. The officer was dispatched and there was nothing in the information on the CAD run in the officer's computer or aired on the radio that would have escalated the call to anything other than a non-emergency situation, check. the area type call for service. Once he arrived, according to the computer at 1:42AM, Officer Coy exited his vehicle and Officer Detweiler #2685 arrived minutes later and exited her vehicle. Mr. Hill was seen walking into a darkened garage so the officers now treated the call as a suspicious person call and drew their weapons. Once the officers approached the garage from different angles, Officer Coy took the lead and directed Mr. Hill in a normal tone of voice to exit the garage. Mr. Hill had his left hand in the air showing the cell phone he was holding. His right hand was concealed behind his leg. Mr. Hill, as he neared the threshold of the garage, reportedly dropped his left hand to his side and Officer Coy yelled, “There's a gun in his other hand,” twice then immediately fired. Mr. Hill laid on the ground while the officers immediately called for a medic. However, there was a protracted delay for the medic to arrive and no officers at scene administered first aid or provided reassurance to Mr. Hill until several minutes later. Mr. Hill was transported to Riverside Hospital where he was pronounced deceased at 2:25AM, The Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation was notified and responded to conduct a criminal investigation. | began an administrative investigation myself, as the circumstances as | was learning them, did not warrant any delay in gathering the facts so administrative decisions could quickly follow.‘Administrative Investigation of Officer Adam Coy #2275 December 26, 2020 SCOPE: The Administrative Investigation conducted by the office of the Chief of Police in conjunction with Internal Affairs Bureau identifies specific allegations, that if true, involve violations of Rule of Conduct 1.04 Cause FOR Dismissat (further described in DIVISION DEFINITION TITLED IN ENCE — IF SOUND JUDGMENT ANI RECISIVENESS) and Rule of Conduct 1.19 USE OF FORCE, (FURTHER DESCRIBED IN RULE OF CONDUCT 1.08 REQUIREMENT to Take Action and DIVISION DIRECTIVE 2.01 AND THE Division's VALUE STATEMENT, CoDe oF EtHics, AND OPERATING PRINCIPLES.) These violations by a Division of Police employee, if true, constitutes serious misconduct. ALLEGATION #4 OFFICER ADAM Coy HAS EXHIBITED INCOMPETENCE, GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY, MISFEASANCE, MALFEASANCE, AND NONFEASANCE DURING A NON-EMERGEN RUN THAT ENDED IN THE DEATH OF ANDRE HILL. RESPONSE To ALLEGATION # 1 was not interviewed for this administrative investigation to Preserve the integrity of an ongoing criminal investigation. He will have a voluntary ler provided criminal investigators an eyewitness interview on December 23, 2020 to BC! investigators. I have no knowledge of that statement. Following the interview with criminal investigators, | ordered Officer Detweiler to ‘submit INVESTIGATOR ComMENTS: | was notified of this officer-involved shooting minutes after it occurred by the on duty Watch Commander. | immediately responded to Scene. While at scene, | viewed the following these critical incidents. There was something very distinct about the officers’ engagement following this critical incident that is difficult to describe for this letter {returned to the scene of the shooting and while on the Command Bus, | was provided imiter portunity to view Officer Coy’s body worn camera foctage of the incident’ The initial contact with Mr. Hill Outside the garage was not captured but Officer Detwaler arenind 2nd the two officers approaching the neighbors garage was captured. wilhcut audio, due to a technology design allowing for a 60-second video only took back, | observed on this video the officers illuminating a very dark garage and | observed Mr. Hill apparently complying with commands and exiting the garage. Officer Detweiler 1AB #202012 - 1029‘Administrative Investigation of Officer Adam Coy #2275 December 26, 2020 stated Mr. Hill did not speak as he was exiting the garage. Without the benefit of sound, T observed Officer Coy suddenly begin backing away from Mr. Hill and firing his weapon, then Mr. Hill was seen on the ground. Only at this moment did Officer Coy activate his BWC capturing the audio. Officer Coy was verbally aroused and issuing orders. Mr. Hill was lying on the ground with his back to the officers and clearly in medical distress. Officer Coy rolled Mr. Hill over and immediately reacted with deep distress using profanity as he realized Mr. Hill was unarmed. Officers at scene did not render medical aid but did immediately notify radio of the occurrence and requested a medic respond. Officer Coy asked Officer Detweiler to call him a support officer; this is an officer who responds to assist officers through a critical event. Officer Coy was heard on his BWC becoming physically il. Officers began securing the scene with crime scene tape and eventually handcuffed Mr. Hill. Medical aid was only first rendered several minutes later. Based on my direct observations of this encounter, | informed the Director's office and the Mayor's office of what | was witnessing. | explained that | observed events with my ‘own eyes and ears that in my experience raised many alarms as to the officer's actions in using deadly force. These were not events merely ‘reported’ culminating in this expedited investigation, but events ‘observed’. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Documentation in support of the allegation includes the statement of Officer Detweiler, the Communications Non-Emergency Call for Service, and the Communications Radio Traffic to Officers, the Computer-Aided Dispatch Records, and my personal observations of the crime scene, the body worn camera footage of numerous officers, and the involved officers’ demeanor at the precinct substation. See also two separate letters | forwarded in the interim to initiate departmental charges while this investigative summary was being prepared for publication. Letter 1 (attached) is titled: "RECOMMENDATION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING FOR POLICE OFFICER ADAM Coy” and Letter 2 (attached) is fitled: “NOTIFICATION OF PENDING INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS OF CRITICAL MiscONDUCT WITHIN THE DIVISION OF POLICE”, both dated December 23, 2020. ‘ENDING There is sufficient evidence to support the allegation; therefore, | recommend a finding of SUSTAINED. This recommendation is based upon ample documentation and statements to demonstrate Officer Coy has performed his assigned duties without exercising sound judgment or decision making, i.e. Incompetence. Further, the incident is currently being investigated by BCI as a homicide and now the U.S. Attorney and the FBI are running a concurrent investigation into a possible federal civil rights violation, thereby amounting to critical misconduct, i.e. Malfeasance. | find Officer Coy to have engaged in Misfeasance regarding his failure to use his BWC. | find Officer Coy to have engaged in Nonfeasance regarding his failure to render aid, i.e. gross neglect of duty. 1B #202012 - 1028‘Administrative Investigation of Officer Adam Coy #2275 December 26, 2020 ALLEGATION #2 OFFICER ADAM COY USED DEADLY FORCE AGAINST ANDRE HILL THAT WAS NOT “OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE”, WHILE ALSO FAILING TO ACTIVATE HIS BODY CAMERA OR PROVIDE MEDICAL AID AFTER SHOOTING MR. HILL. RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION # 2 Officer Adam Coy was not interviewed for this administrative investigation to preserve the integrity of an ongoing criminal investigation. He will have a voluntary opportunity to be heard at the Director's hearing prior to any discipline being imposed. Detweiler provided criminal investigators an eyewitness interview on December 23, 2020 to BCI investigators. | have no knowledge of that statement. Following the interview with criminal investigators, | ordered Officer Detweiler to submit to an administrative interview conducted by IAB Lieutenant William Laff and witnessed by Sgt. Tyrone Hollis, The summary of Officer Detweiler's interview follows. A full verbatim transcript is being prepared. INFORMATIONAL SUMMARY Interview of Officer Amy Detweiler #2685 On December 23, 2020, 3:00PM, Lieutenant William Laff #5044 and Sergeant Ty Hollis #5104 interviewed Officer Amy Detweiler #2685 at Columbus Police Headquarters. Officer Detweiler stated she was dispatched to 1054 Oberlin Drive on a disturbance call involving a person continually restarting a gray SUV. Officer Detweiler stated Officer ‘Adam Coy arrived to the run location prior to her arrival. Officer Detweiler stated, as she artived, she observed Officer Coy outside his vehicle as a male (later identified as Mr. ‘Andre Hil) walked away from the direction of the SUV. Officer Detweiler did not observe any interaction between Officer Coy and Mr. Hill. Officer Detweiler stated she spoke with Officer Coy. Officer Detweiler asked Officer Coy if Mr. Hill had been sleeping in the SUV. Officer Coy informed Officer Detweiler Mr. Hill had just parked the SUV from one location to its current location and proceeded to walk to a residence with an open garage door, 1062 Oberlin Drive. Officer Detweiler stated she and Officer Coy approached the open garage at an angle from opposite sides. Officer Detweiler stated she illuminated the garage and observed Mr. Hill standing on the passenger side of a vehicle parked inside the garage. Officer Detweiler explained Mr. Hill was standing inside the dark garage without entering the residence. Mr. Hill was by the vehicle facing the entrance to the residence while looking down. Officer Detweiler further explained she felt Mr. Hill may need assistance to enter the residence. 1B #202012 - 1029 4Administrative Investigation of Officer Adam Coy #2275 December 26, 2020 Officer Detweiler stated she and Officer Coy both had their service weapons drawn. Officer Detweiler explained she treated the incident as a suspicious person run and Mr. Hill was inside the darkened garage. Officer Detweiler explained Mr. Hill was not attempting to enter the residence and she was concerned why Mr. Hill was inside the garage. As the officers approached closer to the entrance of the garage, Officer Coy asked Mr. Hill to exit the garage. Officer Detweiler stated Officer Coy's tone was his normal tone of voice when he asked Mr. Hill to exit the garage. Officer Detweiler stated Mr. Hill gave no verbal response. Mr. Hill acknowledged Officer Coy's request by turning and walking out of the garage. Officer Detweiler stated Mr. Hill was walking towards her with a cell phone raised in his left hand. Officer Detweiler stated she did not observe any threats from Mr. Hill. Officer Detweiler stated Mr. Hill reached the rear bumper of the vehicle inside the garage and tured towards Officer Coy. Mr. Hill brought down his left hand. Officer Detweiler stated she could not see Mr. Hill's right side. Officer Detweiler stated she did not see a weapon. Officer Detweiler stated Officer Coy observed a firearm and yelled, “There's a gun in his other hand, there's a gun in his other hand!" Officer Detweiler heard gunfire at this moment. Officer Detweiler had nothing further to add and the interview was concluded. End of Interview. INVESTIGATOR COMMENTS Officer Coy is a 19-year veteran of the Division of Police. His entire career has been spent in Patrol. He was attended in-service training, use of force training, and defensive tactics training annually for 19 years covering legal requirements, de- escalation practices, and participated in scenarios on tactics designed to de-escalate, the importance of maintaining time, distance, barrier, and being reasonable in use of force. Further, Officer Coy has acknowledged every Rule of Conduct, Division Directive, and other requirements using an electronic signature system, PowerDMS. Officer Coy has been counseled, trained, and mentored perhaps more than any other officer on use of audio and video recording equipment, use of force policy and expectation, and been subject to performance improvement plans. Officer Coy’s use of force was not objectively reasonable, he did not use trained techniques, did not use his BWC properly, and did not render medical aid. Officer Coy’s handling of this run is not a ‘rookie’ mistake as a result of negligence or inadvertence, but the decisions make and actions taken were reckless and deliberate. IAB #202012 - 1029 5Administrative Investigation of Officer Adam Coy #2275 December 26, 2020 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Documentation in support of the allegation includes the statement of Officer Detweiler, the Communications Non-Emergency Call for Service, and the Communications Radio Traffic to Officers, the Computer-Aided Dispatch Records, and my personal observations of the crime scene, the body worn camera footage of numerous officers, and the involved officers’ demeanor at the precinct substation. See also two separate letters | forwarded in the interim to initiate departmental charges while this investigative summary was being prepared for publication. Letter 1 (attached) is titled: “RECOMMENDATION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING FOR POLICE OFFICER ADAM Coy” and Letter 2 (attached) is titled: “NOTIFICATION OF PENDING INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS OF CRITICAL MISCONDUCT WITHIN THE DIVISION OF POLICE”, both dated December 23, 2020. EiNpING There is sufficient evidence to support the allegation; therefore, | recommend a finding of SUSTAINED. This recommendation is based upon ample documentation, investigation, and personal observation to demonstrate Officer Coy used deadly force that is outside the well-known policies of the Division of Police, outside the professional norms for policing, and is the subject of a criminal investigation by both state and federal officials. Further, his failure to use his body worn camera appropriately or render medical aid has exacerbated the misconduct. His actions have undermined the community trust of officers not only in our city but across America. Most importantly, his failures to follow policies and training have resulted in the death of Andre Hill, an unarmed man who was not known to be committing any crime. MisconpucT Not BASED UPON THE ORIGINAL ALLEGATION ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT WILL CONTINUE TO BE INVESTIGATED REGARDING OFFICER ADAM COY AND THE REMAINING OFFICERS WHO RESPONDED TO THIS CALL FOR SERVICE. USE OF BODY WORN CAMERAS AND DUTY TO RENDER AID WILL BE AMONG THE ACTIONS UNDER FURTHER REVIEW. RECOMMENDATIONS. Be: JAB #202012 — 1029 Allegation #1: | recommend a finding of Sustained for violating ROC 1.04 Cause for Dismissal. Specification # 4: On December 22, 2020, you fatally shot Mr. ‘Andre’ Hill after encountering him at a residence on Oberlin Drive. Known facts do not establish that this use of deadly force was objectively reasonable. Prior to shooting Mr. Hil, you did not attempt to use trained techniques to deescalate the situation. After shooting Mr. Hill, you did not render medical aid or ensure that others did so. 1B #202012 - 1029‘Administrative Investigation of Officer Adam Coy #2275 December 26, 2020 Further you failed to activate your body worn camera while on a call for service. Your actions were a gross violation of your oath as a Columbus Police Officer and, at a minimum, demonstrate incompetence, gross neglect of duty, misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance. Allegation #2: | recommend a finding of Sustained for violating ROC 1.19 Use of Force. Specification # 1: On December 22, 2020, you fatally shot Mr. Andre’ Hill after encountering him at a residence on Oberlin Drive. Known facts do not establish that this use of deadly force was objectively reasonable. You failed to de-escalate, and failed to render aid. Other Misconduct: Remaining allegations of misconduct by Officer Coy and others is currently the focus of an open and active Intemal Affairs investigation #202012 - 1030. ‘Summary Officer Coy responded to a very routine and non-emergency call for service. Officer Coy elected to escalate the encounter by drawing his firearm and limiting his other options by having his hands occupied by a flashlight and a firearm. His approach was flawed, his communications lacking, and his actions dire. This investigation took into consideration Officer Coy's actions and the ultimate outcome of Officer Coy failures to follow policy and training. The investigation contains sufficient records reviewed, interviews conducted, and observations made that find Officer Coy engaged in incompetent activity for a police officer with 19 years experience and as a result of his out of policy use of deadly force an innocent man has lost his life. | find all allegations sustained by a preponderance of evidence. Conciusion: Ina letter | wrote in 2008 while Officer Coy's Patrol Lieutenant | made the following observations about Officer Coy: “If sustained improvements are not fully realized a decision whether Officer Coy is salvageable must follow. Should the interventions described above not produce the desired results a shift towards termination would be warranted, as Officer Coy’s service to the Division of Police will have lost all future value.” Today, | can state unequivocally Officer Coy has no future value to the Division of Police and should be terminated. Respectfully Submitted, Cieg homer a Mc ‘CHieF THOMAS QuiNLAN #5000 Chief of Police 1AB #202012 - 1029 7Administrative Investigation of Officer Adam Coy #2275 December 26, 2020 —_——— THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ———— 1B #202012 - 1029THOMAS QUINLAN THECITYOF Chief of Police COLUMBUS DIVISION OF POLICE December 23, 2020 Ned Pettus, PhD Director of Public Safety SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING FOR POLICE OFFICER ADAM COY Director Pettus, On Tuesday, December 22, 2020 at approximately 1:37AM Officer Adam Coy was dispatched along with another officer to the area of 1000 Oberlin Drive on a suspicious vehicle. Upon arrival minutes later Officer Coy exited his vehicle on a “call for service” and did not activate his body camera. His cruiser camera was also not activated. Officer Coy encountered Andre Hill inside a residential garage. The dispatch run did not provide Officer Coy any indication there was criminal activity occurring or a present danger in the neighborhood. Radio merely advised to check the area for a suspicious vehicle. Officer Coy seeing Mr. Hill in a garage had no immediate cause to believe criminal activity was afoot and certainly had no predisposition to believe Mr. Hill presented any threat to officers. ion Directive 2.01 Use of Force directs officers that they “shall!” [emphasis added] attempt to de- escalate a situation by using trained techniques, such as building rapport, communication skills, maintaining a safe distance, and utilizing a barrier. While there is no audio surrounding the encounter, there is video. The video indicates Officer Coy failed to de-escalate the situation, which ultimately resulted in the loss of Mr. Hill’s life. Division Directive 2.01 Use of Force also states Officers shall use their training and tactics [emphasis added] to guide them through a use of force incident. In this encounter, Officer Coy failed to use training and tactics like time, distance, barrier, communications, and de-escalation. Division Directive 2.01 Use of Force also states in pertinent part: Sworn personnel may use deadly force when the involved personnel have reason to believe the response is objectively reasonable [emphasis added] to protect themselves or others from the imminent threat of death or serious physical harm. No such fact patter is evident here. Just Cause to take action against an employee for critical misconduct requires seven steps: 4) Reasonable Rule or Work Order 2) Notice 3) Sufficient Investigation 4) Fair Investigation 5) Proof 6) Equal Treatment 7) Appropriate Discipline As indicated above, Officer Coy has ‘notice’ of the reasonable work rules. Officer Coy's partner at this call for service has been interviewed as part of the investigation to supplement what | as the Chief of Police have ‘direct observation’ of via body worn video to support a sufficient and fair investigation that critical Tera) 645-45: 120 Marconi Boulevars FCG) 648-4 PO. Box 15009 TOD (6i4) 645-467 Columbus, Ono 43215-0009 ‘The Cty of Columbus is an Equal Opportunity Employer ww zolumbue gow/pokeerules of conduct have been violated. [Officer Detweiler’s statement to IAB attached.] There is tangible roof of the violations outlined throughout this document. These actions and events are unique to Officer Coy's conduct on December 22, 2020 and as such there is little record focused on equal treatment or past discipline for similar misconduct. To further complicate this critical misconduct, Officer Coy failed to activate his body worn camera in violation of Division Directive 11.07, which states: Sworn personnel shall [emphasis added] activate the BWC at the start of an enforcement action or at the first reasonable opportunity to do so. Enforcement actions shall be recorded unless otherwise prohibited. Enforcement actions shall consist of calls for service and self-initiated activity [emphasis added). This dispatched call was a “call for service.” Division Directive 2.01 Use of Force, division personnel are required under step one [emphasis added] to cause any needed medical aid to be rendered. In this instance, Officer Coy failed to provide medical aid or ensure others did so. Rule of Conduct 1.04 Cause for Dismissal: Division personnel hold their positions during good behavior and efficient service, but may be suspended or dismissed for incompetence, gross neglect of duty, gross immorality, habitual intoxication, failure to obey orders given by proper authority, misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, or for any other just and reasonable cause. Officer Coy has violated his right to hold his position as a police officer and should be dismissed for incompetence, failure to obey orders given proper authority, mis-mal-nonfeasance, which all amount to a just and reasonable cause dismissal, Finally, | am also considering the two basic foundations of the Columbus Division of Police - The Oath of Office and the Division of Police Code of Ethics. Oath of Office: | do solemnly swear (or affirm) that | will support the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, the Constitution and Laws of the State of Ohio, the laws and ordinances of the City of Columbus, and the Rules and Regulations of the Department of Public Safety, Division of Police; that | will not affiliate with a defined hate group; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of Police Officer, to which | have been appointed according to law, and to the best of my ability. Division of Police Code of Ethics: As an employee of the Columbus Division of Police, | will obey the rules, regulations, policies, duties, and responsibilities of my position. | will honor my oath as an officer by acting at all times in an ethical and trustworthy manner. | will make decisions based on the values of the organization, which include: Integrity, Compassion, Accountability, Respect, and Excellence. To earn the trust of the community I serve, the Code of Ethics will serve as my guiding principles. Violations of the Code of Ethics is also a violation of Rule of Conduct 1.15 General Requirements and the City's Central Work Rules. Based on the events described above, | also believe that Officer Coy failed to uphold the Oath of Office and the values and principles embodied in the Code of Ethics. This conclusion is based on the totality of the circumstances unique to the actions of Officer Coy in the aggregate. Collective Bargaining Agreement 10.3 Progressive Action: For charges other than insubordination, the principles of progressive corrective action shall be followed for conduct not in violation of law. If the offenses are of a critical nature, the Chief of Police may determine that a different sequence is required... The culpable mental state of the member shall also be taken into consideration. Misconduct that ‘occurs through inadvertence or negligence may mitigate the severity of the penalty that may be imposed, misconduct that occurs as a result of deliberate intention may indicate that a more severe TQUINLAN 10penalty, up to the maximum penalty, may be imposed. SUMMARY: As Chief of Police, the aforementioned are based on events as observed, not events as reported. The observed events indicate to me clear evidence that Officer Coy failed to comply with Rules of Conduct and Division Directives enumerated within this document. The violations of these rules, such as failure to use tactics and training, failure to de-escalate, failure to utilize recording devices provided, and a failure to render aid cumulatively violate Rule of Conduct 1.04 Cause for Dismissal and 1.19 Use of Force. find the seven steps of Just Cause have been met. Additionally, progressive discipline is inappropriate in these circumstances because Officer Coy had a culpable mental state, acted with deliberate intention, and/or the offenses are of a critical natu This case is under active criminal investigation by the Ohio Attorney General's Office of Bureau of Criminal Investigation and upon its completion will be reviewed by the U.S. Attorney and the FBI for federal civil rights violations. Separate from ongoing criminal investigations, Officer Coy is an active member of the Division of Police and as such subject to the Rules and Regulations of the Department of Public Safety, Division of Police as the Oath of Office he swore to uphold. ‘Subject to these Rules and Regulations | find Officer Coy engaged in oritical misconduct that has irreparably harmed community trust and the trust of his superiors. Therefore | recommend an immediate termination of his employment subject to a hearing before the Director of Public Safety. Forwarding to Director Pettus, PhD for any action he deems appropriate and supported by the record. Respectfully Submitted, horas chinks Chief of Police Tartg TQUINLANTHOMAS QUINLAN THE CITY OF Chet of Panee COLUMBUS DIVISION OF POLICE December 23, 2020 Ned Pettus, PhD. Director of Public Safety SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF PENDING INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS OF CRITICAL MISCONDUCT WITHIN THE DIVISION OF POLICE Director Pettus, Upon leaming of the tragedy that occurred on December 22, 2020 on Obert Drive | immediately responded to the scene. While at the scene Ihad an opportunity to view body wom video of the deadly encounter. | directly observed violations of ertcal misconduct by officers within the Division of Police. Based on this knowledge | immediately initiated concurrent internal investigations to coincide with the State BCI criminal investigation. | also ordered Officer Coy relieved of duty and he surrendered hie badge and division fircarm. | also stripped him of all police authority. I then ordered the witness officer re for an interview and concluded the investigation as sustained critical misconduct. Investigation #1 is found under IAB #202012 - 1029. This investigation solely focuses on the Use of Force resulting in death. | concluded an expedited investigation into this critical misconduct, sustained wolations of the Rules of Conduct, and forwarded charges and a termination recommendation ts your office for a requisite hearing and disposition. The sustained allegations incorporate the totality of Circumstances including a failure to activate the body wom camera and failure to render aia Investigation #2 is found under IAB #202012 - 1030. This investigation focuses on a broad scope of allegations to include all responding personnel and will determine whether policy Violations eegrord Feaarding activation of body worn cameras and a duty to render medical aid, along with any other findings discovered during the comprehensive investigation that will ocour. Please find attached the sustained charges and specifications relating to IAB #202012 ~ 1029, The Subsequent investigation remains open and action will follow as soon as completed, Respectfully Submitted, ‘Thomas Quinian #5000 Chief of Police Toltg 120 Marconi ouevare PO. 0x 15008 Columbus, Ono 43215-0009 The City of Columbus isan Equal Opportunity Employer