Detective got tough with Duke students (Herr Gottlieb's Record)

DURHAM - If three Duke University lacrosse players face a jury this spring, defense attorneys likely will take aim at Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, the Durham police officer who supervised the investigation into the March 13 party at which an escort service dancer says she was raped.

The 43-year-old detective could be the prosecution's most important witness aside from the dancer herself.

In recent weeks, an attorney for one of the lacrosse players questioned the plausibility of Gottlieb's case notes, provided to the defense as evidence. Attorneys also have criticized Gottlieb for not following the Durham Police Department's guidelines in a photo lineup that he showed the accuser.

Members of the defense team are now closely examining the arrests Gottlieb made before the rape case. Records show that the sergeant arrested a disproportionate number of Duke students, all on misdemeanor violations such as carrying an open beer on a public sidewalk or violating the city's noise ordinance.

Such charges usually earn an offender a pink ticket such as those issued for speeding. But court records show Gottlieb often arrested Duke students on such charges, taking them to jail in handcuffs.

Reached by telephone, Gottlieb declined to be interviewed for this story. A department spokesman said this week the sergeant is on leave, though what kind was not disclosed.

Some residents of neighborhoods where Gottlieb worked and victims' advocates say that the sergeant is a dedicated and fair officer.

A native of Ohio, Gottlieb is married and the father of young twins. The couple is expecting another child soon. Over the past 18 years, Gottlieb has worked as a paramedic in Wake and Durham counties, as well as a Durham police officer.

A barrel-chested man, Gottlieb tends to walk with his shoulders back and chin up. Among his colleagues, he is known as outspoken and sometimes headstrong. In a 2005 court affidavit that noted his qualifications, Gottlieb listed several community colleges he has attended and professional certifications. The affidavit did not mention an academic degree beyond high school.

Gottlieb got the lacrosse case weeks after serving 10 months as a patrol shift supervisor in police District 2, which includes about a quarter of the city. The district has neighborhoods as disparate as the crime-ridden Oxford Manor public housing complex and Trinity Park -- the blocks of historic homes across from a low stone wall rimming Duke's East Campus.

From May 2005 to February 2006, the period during which Gottlieb was a patrol supervisor in the district, court and police records examined by The News & Observer show that Gottlieb arrested 28 people. Twenty were Duke students, including a quarterback of the football team and the sister of a men's lacrosse player. At least 15 of the Duke students were taken to jail.

In comparison, the three other squad supervisors working in District 2 during the same 10 months -- Sgts. Dale Gunter, John Shelton and Paul Daye -- tallied a combined 64 arrests. Two were Duke students. Both were taken to jail.

Gottlieb often treated Duke students and nonstudents differently. For example, Gottlieb in 2004 wrote a young man a citation for illegally carrying a concealed .45-caliber handgun and possessing less than a half-ounce of marijuana, but records indicate he wasn't taken to jail. He was not a Duke student.

Trinity Park residents have long complained to university and city officials about the boisterous parties thrown by the students who live there. That spurred Duke in February to buy a dozen rental properties in the neighborhood, including the house where the lacrosse team threw its spring break bash two weeks later.

The Durham police officers who responded to 911 calls about the parties were sometimes on the receiving end of defiance and disrespectful taunts. Trinity Park resident Ellen Dagenhart praised Gottlieb's get-tough tactics as a direct response to community concerns about disruptive, drunken behavior.

"There were a lot of homeowners and taxpayers who were calling the cops saying, 'Please come and make yourself seen,' " said Dagenhart, who has known Gottlieb for years. "Anyone who's seen kids passed out in a puddle of vomit is certainly happy to see the police show up. You can't blame Mark Gottlieb for that."

Durham City Manager Patrick Baker said that cracking down on Trinity Park partying was a priority for police last year.

The police department's official policy gives officers discretion in whether to transport someone to the lockup downtown. Factors other than just the "elements of the crime" can be considered, such as whether the suspect is belligerent.

"Our general order, it basically gives the officer room to use his or her own judgment," said Cpl. David Addison, a police spokesman.

But a standing order encourages officers to use alternatives to arrests for misdemeanors, including the use of written citations because of "jail overcrowding, crowded court dockets, staffing problems and the intrusiveness involved in a physical arrest."

On Oct. 8, Gottlieb and officers he supervised responded to a call about a rowdy student at a duplex at 203 Watts St. -- a Trinity Park address familiar to the police as a party house.

In an affidavit, Gottlieb wrote that officers arrived about 6:30 p.m. and told partygoers to be quiet. After the police left, party-goers urinated on neighbor Lee Coggins' home and threw a beer bottle in her direction that shattered on the sidewalk, Gottlieb wrote.

Police obtained a search warrant, and Gottlieb's squad entered the duplex at 3:19 a.m. They seized three beer kegs -- one empty -- and "beer bong tubing." On the wall was what Gottlieb described as a "stolen Duke flag." A Duke flag had been reported stolen from an administrative building on campus the previous spring.

Five students there were arrested by Gottlieb for violating the city's noise ordinance and alcohol-related misdemeanors. Another housemate, Mike Kenney, was arrested the next day.

Kenney, then 21, was charged with a noise ordinance violation and possession of an open container of alcohol on public property and taken to jail. Two days later, records show, Kenney was arrested a second time and taken to jail on charges of possession of stolen property. The flag had been in his room.

When the case went to trial in January, Gottlieb testified that in the wake of rowdy parties in Trinity Park, the department's policy was to take alcohol-related violations seriously. But the judge threw out the charges against Kenney, citing a lack of evidence.

Glen Bachman, Kenney's attorney, successfully argued that Gottlieb couldn't prove the college senior was home during the party or that the flag in his room was the same flag that had been stolen.

Coggins, the woman who called police about the party at the duplex, said Gottlieb's actions seemed responsive and professional. He doesn't have a vendetta against Duke students, she said.

"It's not like he's hanging out at their house waiting for them to do something," Coggins said.

Kathy Summerlee, Kenney's mother and a lawyer in Minnesota, called the arrest and prosecution of her son "frivolous."

Though the charges were thrown out, Kenney could have faced suspension if convicted. He graduated from Duke in May and now is looking for a job, she said.

"It was clear to all of us that the police were feeling a lot of pressure to make a difference in the behavior in that neighborhood," Summerlee said this week. "I think there was a lot of damage done in this process. It cost us money. It cost us a lot of worry. It rearranged Mike's life."

Still, some in Trinity Park cite Gottlieb as a dedicated officer. He prides himself on being a victim's advocate, often recounting stories from his years as a domestic violence investigator.

Dagenhart said she remembers seeing him at a vigil for domestic violence victims.

"This was not something he had to do as a part of his job," she said. "It's something he did as someone who cared. I know he cares about Durham. It's not just a job for him."

(News researchers David Raynor and Denise Jones contributed to this report.) Staff writer Michael Biesecker can be reached at 956-2421 or mbieseck@newsobserver.com. News researchers David Raynor and Denise Jones contributed to this report.

2 officers charged with assault fired

By Ray Gronberg, The Herald-Sun
September 14, 2006 10:39 pm

DURHAM -- Police Chief Steve Chalmers Thursday announced the firing of two of his officers in response to findings of an internal affairs investigation into an alleged assault on a cook at a Raleigh sports bar July 20.

The officers, Scott Tanner, 33, and Gary Lee, 38, have been charged with misdemeanor assault by Raleigh police. Their termination was effective immediately, but could be overturned if they successfully appeal to City Manager Patrick Baker.

Chalmers said Tanner and Lee had violated department policy by breaking the law and doing things that brought "embarrassment and negative attention" to the police force.

"These two were involved in what I would determine to be nothing less than a public brawl involving a total stranger, and certainly we feel there was no provocation for that," Chalmers said. "It really failed to rise to the level of what we expect our officers to do."

Chalmers extended a public apology to the cook, Rene Dennis Thomas, and to the community.

Officials "certainly hope this incident has not eroded public confidence in the Durham Police Department," Chalmers said. "The officers involved made mistakes, but that is certainly not indicative of the men and women in the Durham Police Department."

At the same time, Chalmers announced that the internal affairs investigation had cleared three other officers tied to the case, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and officers Richard Clayton and James Griffin.

The three, though present, "were not actively involved" in the incident, Chalmers said. "Some were in a position to see what occurred, but took no part in it."

The announcements capped an investigation that began shortly after Thomas reported he'd been assaulted by a group of men outside his workplace, Blinco's Sports Restaurant and Bar.

Thomas alleged the incident began after he shouted at the occupants of a truck leaving the property. He and an occupant of the truck exchanged racial slurs, he said. The truck stopped and the man who'd called Thomas the "N" word got out and confronted him.

Thomas told ABC News the man who confronted him poked him in the shoulder, called him "boy" and invited a second man to assault him.

The cook said the second assailant took off his shirt and rushed him, taking a swing at Thomas that prompted the cook to drop to the ground.

Raleigh police have accused Lee of trying to strike and tackle Thomas. Tanner is accused of kicking Thomas after the cook went down.

Chalmers said investigators believe Tanner was the man who initially confronted Thomas.

Chalmers said investigators believe Lee, who'd been riding in another vehicle, was the second man to confront Thomas.

Clayton and Griffin "both said they were there" and saw what transpired, the chief said. Chalmers added: "Things happened so quickly they didn't have the opportunity to intercede or stop anything."

Gottlieb -- whose role in the incident has provoked intense interest because he's the supervising investigator of the Duke lacrosse rape case -- was in a parked vehicle and didn't see what happened, Chalmers said.

The sergeant was told what happened and called the department's District 2 watch commander to report it, Chalmers said.

Chalmers said investigators are confident of their findings. "It was an open-and-shut thing and the statements were consistent," he said. "The only thing we weren't able to substantiate was the racial slur."

Alcohol may have played a role in the incident, but after studying the officers' bar tabs, investigators concluded that "there was no reason to feel they were impaired" to the point of violating the state's drunk-driving laws, Chalmers said.

Thomas didn't return a call seeking comment on Thursday's announcement. Nor did Lee or Raleigh lawyer Thomas Manning, who legal sources in Durham believe is representing him in the ongoing assault case, scheduled for court on Sept. 25.

The only number available for Tanner was a city-issued cell phone. A message left on that Thursday wasn't answered.

Elected officials said they support the chief's action.

"I will have to have to confidence that the department conducted a thorough investigation," Councilman Thomas Stith said, basically echoing the stance taken by fellow members Mike Woodard and Diane Catotti. "Clearly there was enough inappropriate behavior to warrant termination."

URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-769877.html

2 Durham cops fired over bar affray
Three other officers, including two involved in the Duke lacrosse case, are not disciplined

Matt Dees, Staff Writer
DURHAM - The two Durham police officers charged in July with assaulting a cook outside a Raleigh sports bar were fired Thursday, Chief Steve Chalmers announced.

Gary P. Lee, 38, and Scott C. Tanner, 33, the two officers who face misdemeanor assault charges after a fight outside Blinco's, have seven days to appeal their dismissals through a city grievance process.

"These two were involved in what I would describe as nothing less than a public brawl with a perfect stranger," Chalmers said. "It really failed to rise to the level of what we expect from our officers."

Chalmers also told reporters at a news conference Thursday that no disciplinary action would be taken against three other officers questioned about their alleged involvement in the Wake County incident. Two of those officers are involved in the Duke lacrosse case.

An internal investigation cleared Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and officer Richard D. Clayton, investigators in the Duke rape case, and James A. Griffin Jr., a domestic violence investigator, department officials said. Gottlieb reported the incident to Durham police the same night but after the officers had left the scene, Chalmers said.

Lee and Tanner are set to appear in court in Wake County on Sept. 25.

Police are not releasing the full report of the internal investigation, citing state law that allows them to keep personnel matters secret. Chalmers said the firings were made public to avoid eroding "the public confidence in the ability of our department to provide services in a fair and impartial manner."

The assault charges came after several people, including current and former police officers, gathered at Blinco's on July 20 to send off a fellow Durham officer who was resigning, Chalmers said in July.

As some of the officers were leaving a parking area behind the bar about 11:30 p.m., they encountered Rene Dennis Thomas, 29, a cook who was taking a cigarette break.

Thomas said shortly after the incident that after a truck carrying some of the men peeled out of the parking lot, he shouted, "Woo-hoo."

Thomas said a man in the truck shouted a racial slur at him and he replied with one. Thomas said the fight occurred after that.

Chalmers said Thursday that department investigators had not been able to determine that any racial slurs were exchanged in an incident that lasted about 30 seconds. The officers involved denied using a racial slur, and they said they didn't hear Thomas use one, either, Chalmers said.

Chalmers said investigators reviewed the officers' bar tabs from the night. He said those indicated that the officers hadn't been drinking to excess, though he wouldn't say how much each officer spent on alcohol.

Chalmers said police officials are satisfied that Lee and Tanner instigated the incident. They don't see a need to wait for a verdict from the legal system, he said.

(Staff writer Anne Blythe contributed to this report.)
Staff writer Matt Dees can be reached at 956-2433 or matt.dees@newsobserver.com.
Staff writer Anne Blythe contributed to this report.
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/486407.html

VERY IMPORTANT - MUST READ

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/
Clarifying the Record
A few days ago, I noted that significant aspects of this case are available on the public record--open to any journalist who wanted to take the time to examine the material and explain its significance. Shortly thereafter, I received a gentle reminder from a person who knows the case much better than I do that while an unusual amount about the investigation has been made public, it's almost certain that much remains unknown about this affair.

My correspondent was, of course, absolutely correct. But--Byron Calame's journalistic advice notwithstanding--it's unlikely we'll see much new information emerge about the lacrosse team, or that this matter represents the critical unknown at this stage.

On the other hand, the public record contains virtually nothing about internal conditions in the Durham Police Department. In the Mostafa trial, Nifong investigator Linwood Wilson took the stand to impeach the testimony of Inv. B.W. Himan (regarding the claim in Himan's notes that Nifong wanted to be contacted immediately after police arrested Mostafa). A piece in Wednesday's Herald-Sun--confirming every day its status as a Nifong house organ--implied that the three other District 2 supervisors weren't following Durham Police policy regarding the targeting of Duke students. (The article sought to excuse Sgt. Mark Gottlieb's record of arresting 10 times as many Duke students as the other three supervisors combined.) The willingness of Nifong&Co. to suggest incompetence for any police officer whose conduct in any way might hurt the state's position in the rape case can't be good for morale.

We also know relatively little about the attitudes and actions within the Duke administration between March 14 and April 5. (The Bowen/Chambers report was supposed to investigate this question, but instead, as Stuart Taylor observed, produced a "parody of race-obsessed political correctness.") In recent weeks, Duke has presented an image of the administration going out of its way to protect the rights of its students, while dealing with overwhelmed, even "frightened," lacrosse parents. I suspect that the more we learn about the administration's actions during those critical three weeks, the less defensible Duke's approach will appear. Along these lines, I reproduce below comments that I recently received from a lacrosse parent.

I read with interest your recent post and the link to the March 27 Chronicle story. The article referenced a meeting the team parents had the afternoon of March 25 with university officials after they had cancelled that day's game against Georgetown. Larry Moneta, the vp for student affairs, was quoted in the story as stating that the meeting was to "keep the parents informed and focusing on the consequences for their kids and the way we will proceed pending the conclusion of the investigation." Moneta also said "the parents were frightened and nervous for their children."

This statement, like so many other statements put out by Duke officials, was misleading and false. I was one of the 40 or 50 parents who were at that meeting that day. We were nervous for our sons, but we were also furious at Duke. That was the day we all realized that Duke was not on our side and was not going to do anything to protect its students. That was the day Brodhead turned his back on our sons.

When Duke forfeited that day's game, Coach Pressler asked the parents who were in town for the game to meet with Athletic Director Alleva and Dean Wasiolek. The two of them told us that this game and the next had been forfeited as the team's punishment for holding the party. Alleva said the "party was inconsistent with the values of Duke athletics and Duke University and is unacceptable." He could not tell us when, or if ever, a Duke team had forfeited a game for disciplinary reasons. He could not explain why he had not forced all of the other Duke athletic teams, fraternities, and sororities which had held similar parties to forfeit their games or activities. And he refused to admit that his actions canceling the games just might make it look like Duke thought the team was guilty.

We were furious, and felt totally betrayed by Duke. We knew our sons were innocent of these outrageous allegations, and so did Duke. We had all grilled our sons about what happened, and so had Duke officials. No charges had been filed, and the Duke police had told university officials the allegations were not credible. A university lawyer had told team parents there was nothing to the allegations and they would go away. Top university officials, including the number two man EVP Tallman Trask, Alleva, and Wasiolek, had met with the four team captains the previous afternoon, learned exactly what had and had not happened, including the extent of their cooperation with the police, and had told them they believed they were innocent. In fact, Trask told the four captains as they left the meeting to "Beat Georgetown." Yet less than 24 hours later, Duke was forfeiting the games and putting out statements that moved this story from the local papers to the front page of the New York Times.

During the meeting, we pleaded with Alleva to amend his statement to say that Duke officials had met with the team captains, knew they were cooperating with the authorities, and believed they were innocent. When Alleva refused to do that, we asked to meet with President Brodhead. After a short break, Alleva returned with Trask and Moneta, who told us flatly that Brodhead would not meet with us. When we asked them to put out a statement from Brodhead saying that Duke was confident that its students were innocent, they refused, and informed us that no further statements would be released by anyone at Duke. They also told us that no further action would be taken by Duke against the team until the legal investigation was concluded, and that steps would be taken to ensure that the team members would be treated fairly by their professors.

As it turned out, none of these assurances from the Duke officials were true. Less than an hour after the meeting broke up, Brodhead issued a statement praising Alleva's action and stating that "physical coercion and sexual assault are unacceptable in any setting and have no place at Duke. The criminal allegations against three members of our men's lacrosse team, if verified, will warrant very serious penalties." Brodhead also urged everyone on the team to cooperate with the authorities. With this statement, Brodhead turned his back on his students, and threw them to the wolves, and helped create the media firestorm that erupted.

We were shocked and dismayed. How could Duke take such a radical turn…moving from "we believe you are innocent" to issuing a statement that all but declared the team was guilty? We now know that Brodhead caved to a small but very vocal group of professors who wanted to drive athletic teams off the campus. At a faculty meeting that Friday afternoon and another meeting with faculty that Saturday morning, Brodhead was severely criticized for not forcing the team to cooperate with the investigation and for not disbanding the team. Instead of explaining to these officials the constitutional rights of their own students, Brodhead caved to their pressure and took the side of the mob. He has been there ever since.

The apparent unwillingness or inability of Duke administrators to follow through on their minimal promise in this meeting--that the institution wouldn't tolerate academic harassment of lacrosse players by their professors--represents one of the most disturbing, if least examined, aspects of this affair. It does seem that a few people within the Duke administration--Trinity College dean Bob Thompson, for instance--that tried to approach this case with the fairmindedness it required. Unfortunately, Moneta, Trask, and Wasiolek appear to have carried the day.

posted by KC Johnson at 12:37 PM

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.