Posted on 09/07/2002 12:33:26 AM PDT by Houmatt
Houston Police Chief C.O. Bradford was indicted Friday on allegations of lying under oath about whether he used foul language with subordinates. Hours later, Mayor Lee Brown suspended the first police chief in Houston in modern times to be charged with a crime.
If convicted, the chief, who also is a lawyer, could face up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
"Obviously, I'm not happy about it," Brown said. "As you know, we have a good police chief, a good department. ... Chief Bradford will proceed through the process, I'm assuming get himself a lawyer and go to trial and have a chance to tell his side of the story.
"Then it's my hope that he'll come back and continue to be our chief," the mayor continued. "I have confidence in Chief Bradford."
Brown appointed Tim Oettmeier, the city's inspector general and an assistant chief, as acting chief.
Department practice requires that officers who have been indicted be suspended with pay. While Bradford said he cannot be treated differently, he also maintained his innocence.
"I haven't done anything to perjure myself," Bradford said. "There's just no motive for me to go under oath and perjure myself ...
"This is the right thing to do. I need to step aside and allow the citizens of our city, our wonderful police department, to move forward. I'm an individual. I'm not above the law. And I do not want to do anything to impede or taint the reputation of the organization."
A Police Department official said Bradford is believed to be the only Houston police chief to be indicted in office. Former Chief Carroll Lynn, appointed in 1974 to reform the department and improve its image, was indicted after he left office and later sentenced to prison.
The allegation against Bradford stems from a rift between Bradford and suspended Capt. Mark Aguirre, the police supervisor in charge of last month's unrelated raid at a westside Kmart.
Bradford's troubles began with a letter of reprimand, punishing Aguirre for using profane and threatening language toward his subordinates at a supervisory meeting Aug. 21, 2001.
During the meeting Aguirre called supervisors in the South Central patrol division, which he oversees, "sons of bitches" and "lazy bastards," according to the letter of reprimand from Bradford dated Nov. 14, 2001.
Aguirre appealed the reprimand and was granted a hearing before the Civil Service Commission. Bradford testified under oath at that hearing that he had never used profanity with his subordinates.
After contradictory testimony by Assistant Chief J.L. Breshears, Aguirre asked Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal to investigate whether Bradford committed aggravated perjury, which means he is accused of making a false statement during an official proceeding and that the false statement was material to the proceeding. The case was presented to a grand jury without charges.
The panel voted that the allegation was true, finding that "after being duly sworn, (Bradford) did, under oath, make a false statement ... that he had not called subordinates names in meetings, whereas in truth and in fact in a meeting on or about November 3, 2000, (Bradford) called subordinates `mother -------' and (Bradford) did make the statement with knowledge of the statement's meaning and with intent to deceive ... "
Prosecutor Don Smyth, who heads Rosenthal's Governmental Affairs Bureau, said holding a high-ranking officer under the microscope is not an easy task. But Smyth added that if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the chief committed perjury "then he will be convicted."
"It's a tough case to take any case to a grand jury involving allegations that your police department, the guys that you pay to protect you and serve you and put their life on the line for you, does any kind of criminal wrongdoing," Smyth said. "Just because it's a chief of police doesn't make it any less of a tugging at your heartstrings."
Bradford must post $5,000 bail on the charge, which is a third-degree felony. County records indicated the bond was posted by Bradford sometime Friday.
Rosenthal said Bradford was allowed to turn himself in without being arrested, as is typical in most white collar crimes and public integrity cases.
"He has to give fingerprints, everything else just like everybody else," Rosenthal said.
Smyth will handle the case but will report directly to Rosenthal, who will ultimately decide what recommendations to make in the case and will approve whether a plea bargain should be offered.
The case was randomly assigned to Judge Brian Rains in the 176th State District Court. Bradford's first court date could be within a week.
Rosenthal said he has not talked to Bradford or his attorneys.
"We'll be open to any suggestions his attorneys make." Rosenthal said. "And we'll consider everything in this case. The earmarks of this case look to me like it will have to be resolved by a trial. Certainly if we can resolve it by something other than trial that's fine with me."
The city will not provide a lawyer for Bradford's defense.
Legal Department policy forbids offering legal counsel to city employees charged with crimes, said First Assistant City Attorney Susan Taylor. Doing so would be tantamount to using public funds to provide a gift to someone facing a private matter, she said.
Oettmeier does not expect a difficult adjustment, saying he has attended most of the command staff meetings and is familiar with issues surrounding the department.
Oettmeier, a 29-year department veteran, has been an assistant chief heading the Office of Inspector General since 1998, when it was established by Mayor Brown. Brown created the department to investigate allegations of employee misconduct, both criminal and administrative.
Had it not been for the complete stupidy of the juvinile thieves bragging of thier misdeeds at school I would not have got my stuff back.
What difference does it make that Bradford did not like Aguirre? Aguirre ran the K-Mart raid, and he's responsible for what happened that night.
I'm sure Bradford was more than willing to let Aguirre take the brunt of the criticism, and maybe Bradford knew more about the planned raid than he admits, but it doesn't change what happened.
I hope Bradford is convicted of perjury and is run out of town. He refuses to cooperate with the Justice Department in identifying people who are in the country illegally. He's a fool, a liberal, and a liar. Good riddance.
Huh? What are you talking about?
Did you actually read both articles? The perjury allegations were made months ago, well before the raid.
It makes plenty of difference. It calls into suspicion Bradford's statement that he was "embarassed" by the raid as he refused to stand by his officers which is what he is supposed to do.
If Yates can show Aguirre's suspension was due to Bradford's personal feelings toward him (which I say is more than likely considering Bradford is either grossly incompetent or a first-class liar in saying he did not know about the raid), Aguirre's suspension will have to be lifted.
These allegations are garbage anyway. Can anyone imagine prosecuting a cop for using profanity? It goes with the territory !
Besides, everyone knows all cops are M @#$%^$&^$%@# anyway.
While this is a common form of the metaphor, I realized it's not grammatically correct. It should be "hoist(ed) by one's own petard". as originally quoted from Shakespeare's "Hamlet".
I will tell you what: In early January, 2004, the clouds are going to part over Houston, and the angels will sing Hallejuah, for the day had come that Lee Brown finally left City Hall.
Even if his officers broke the law?
If Yates can show Aguirre's suspension was due to Bradford's personal feelings toward him (which I say is more than likely considering Bradford is either grossly incompetent or a first-class liar in saying he did not know about the raid), Aguirre's suspension will have to be lifted.
What about the suspension of the other 12 supervisory officers (lieutenants, sergeants, and another captain) that participated in the operation? Are those due to Bradford's personal feelings, too?
Aguirre's suspension was entirely justified, not only because of his actions that night, but because he was contacting other officers to try to influence what they would tell investigators.
Your perspective is clouded because you support what happened at K-Mart.
Aguirre is garbage and he belongs in jail.
Bradford belongs there with him.
But when was the last time Bradford stood behind any officer that was not due to a photo op?
And you are only assuming the arrests were illegal. There have been allegations made, which are being investigated.
Personally, I think a Grand Jury should be convened to decide this issue, once and for all, based on evidence and hard facts instead of rhetoric.
You're right about the illegal arrests. It's more than an assumption on my part, though. It's my professional opinion. The arrests have not been ruled as such, yet, so I should have qualified my statement about them.
Your suggestion about a grand jury is a good one, and it would not surprise me to learn that one is already doing so. We know that the District Attorney said he would investigate, and a grand jury is his favorite and most effective tool to do so.
In case you haven't noticed, the chief has already admitted the HPD does not have affidavits (from K-Mart and Sonic) that would make the arrests legal. And even if they do scrounge up affidavits, he has admitted that the arrests violated HPD's own policy of only arresting people that refuse to leave.
Yes, the investigation continues. But, there's already enough information to make Dog Gone's assumption a safe one.
Personally, I think a Grand Jury should be convened to decide this issue, once and for all, based on evidence and hard facts instead of rhetoric.
I can't find the article at the moment, but that's exactly what the district attorney is planning to do, once the investigation is complete.
However, it will probably be only to evaluate the actions by the HPD. I don't think the "attempted trespassing" arrests are going to make it that far. I expect the charges will be dropped by the prosecutor -- even for those who pled guilty to avoid a night in jail -- after he realizes there were no legal grounds for the arrests.
I don't know why he's taking so long to decide what is obvious to 99.9% of us.
LOL, yes, you're a %#@$ Michelangelo.
Add one more. If you live in a neighborhood that has gone to hell and don't move out, its your own damn fault!
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.