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.
I remember an article you posted that said he was planning to decide in the next few weeks. I don't know if he is compelled to make a decision by then.
I don't know why he's taking so long to decide what is obvious to 99.9% of us.
I think they completed interviews of all of the officers (that participated in the operation) last week. It's reasonable to give him some time to sift through all of it and follow-up if necessary. I'd also like to see the outcome of the investigation concerning the origin of the "no trespassing" signs and the authority under which they were posted.
Also, I'm still concerned about the reports of officers waving guns around during the operation. These days, the mere sight of a gun turns some people wild-eyed, so I'm not convinced it wasn't blown out of proportion. But, it needs to be checked out -- if sustantiated, I think it's a more serious matter than false arrest.
I'm old enough to remember my son saying his high school football coach used profanity..... OH HORRORS!!!!!!!
Lying about the use of profanity on the job (in an investigation over a botched dragnet to arrest drag racers) is a heinous offense, free speech be damned.
I'm old enough to remember my son saying his high school football coach used profanity..... OH HORRORS!!!!!!!
Yeah, but it ain't the cussin' that got Bradford in trouble -- it was the coverup. If he had testified "$#@$!, yeah, I called that little snake a %$#$*#( #$#$er, it would have been no harm, no foul. But unless you can collect the number of spearcatchers, hitmen, and smear artists that the Clintons did, you are toast if you perjure yourself.
Perhaps he should have blamed the corrupting influence of television. After all, isn't there profanity on NYPD Blue? He could have brought this up as a defense and then dropped his pants and shown his butt to the judge. Gritty police realism with problems wrapped up in under an hour.
mORE pc BS !
tHE PERSON WHO HASN'T USED PROFANITY IS A VERY RARE BIRD!
I pity these officers,etc when dealing with criminals who speak in profanities constantly.
I agree with your comments, dix. Expecially about how being a policeman is gritty. Oftentimes, it's also an unrewarding profession. They put their lives on the line, every day. They are a target, every time they put on their uniform. They are willing to do what many of us are not. We call them to protect us, help us, or help others who are in situations that are dangerous (drunks loaded with guns or anger, or domestic violence, for example), where emotions run rampant and sanity does not. They see death, if not daily, then weekly. Like ER docs, they have to remove their feelings from tragedy, from the sight of death. Many deal with that by joking about it with their comrades. This is not done with disrespect toward the badly injured or dead, but to keep their own sanity and ability to "do their job." What good is a policeman, or doctor, who cries at every injured/dead person? I couldn't do this. And so, they are oftentimes perceived as uncaring or tactless. (I am not defending anyone who is unkind to the family/relatives of the injured/dead.....I'm just saying those kinds of jobs force one to act in ways that keep them from crumbling. Along with that, I suppose, the language they use becomes less than "proper." I have been around a lot of cops. They routinely swear---all of them. When they are around women, however, they try to refrain from this talk, but it's difficult to do because, when they're just around the guys, that's the way it is: "f this, f that," etc. I could care less about how my superior would talk if I worked in that environment, it's much different than the environment of, say, a bank or law firm, where I can expect the language used to be "proper." Just my two cents here on the language subject.
"But... but... they weren't names! they were terms of affection! I use the 'motherf-----' word with my best friends!"
Our government has reduced itself to PC idiocy.Let us all take a silent moment to thank former(at last) President,Mr. W.J. Clinton for this.
That being said, let the loose cannons of LEO be hoisted high on their own petards.
I have wiped the sleep from my eyes, and seen the harm done to this country by the "left", alternative to common sense, and any non-comotose citizen left standing.
The debacle in Houston was not right(moral, legal, correct), defensable by law, nor even conceivable as possible by the many men and women who are currently putting themselves in harms way to defend their sorry @sses.
It is indeed sad that the only way to rid ourselves of such insanity, is to resort to the same repulsive, banal,legal "niceties" they entrap themselves in.
Whatever....works.
This is well worth repeating. Our country has so much to offer, to so many......how it breaks my heart that the little people of the U.S., those with small brains and no hearts such as the likes of Daschle and the Clintons, have gained such power and used it to destroy the excellence our nation could otherwise have achieved.
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.