Good morning, everyone.

My name is Dennis Moroni, and I am uh the hearing examiner uh this matter concerns uh actions involving Christopher Benitez uh addressing four separate MPD personnel orders, namely 2025-169, 2025-170, 2025-171, 2025-172.

It's Wednesday morning, March the 4th.

It's our first day of the hearing, and uh with us uh today handling the matters as far as the commissioners are concerned.

Uh my far right, Christopher Snyder.

Very important.

And uh, we are in phase one of this matter.

Uh there's a lot of stuff going on here, so uh, I want to have uh appearances being made uh here today.

Good morning, Harry Examiner Commissioner's Catherine Hudley, K A T H E R I N E.

Last name H E A M E Y appearing on behalf of the chief.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Good morning, commissioners.

Uh, my name is Matt Kitchcar Cross.

I am appearing with David Ferguson here from Cross Law Firm on behalf of uh the employee, Mr.

Chris Beninas.

All right, thank you very much, uh everyone.

Uh we have quite a few documents as we can see, and I think the way we set this up uh uh basically have the oldest uh personnel matter be concerned to as the basically instant A.

Uh, and then the next oldest it's B C and then D and have numerical numbers after that as to the respective uh particular document associated with uh each of the particular uh personnel matters that we're going to be dealing with here to try to keep some semblance of order for everybody.

Um so uh please keep that in mind as we're going through this thing, and so we can kind of help each other out to try to keep this thing straight okay.

Well, it's my understanding that there are multiple work rule uh allegations of work rule violations.

There's only one ultimate action that was taking place that's before this commission.

Is that is that your understanding as well?

No, we have four estate personnel, Matt.

Okay, and uh you can uh you have the four each one of those is a separate one, each one is gonna have a separate decision, each one is gonna have a separate phase one, each one's gonna have a separate phase two.

Great.

I appreciate you click on that.

That's fine.

We generally don't get into this complicated that we can't in that.

So that's what I'm saying to you.

Uh, we're gonna have to kind of work a little bit together to kind of help each other out and make sure we get through this thing in some kind of organized fashion.

Uh, and I I appreciate your position.

Appreciate my okay and I just try to keep order.

All right, that being said, uh, first of all, are there any stipulations that either that you'd like to advise uh the commission on at this time?

Well, we do not come to any uh factual stipulations for this matter, however, uh we did agree to simulate to the admission of the documents uh that are presently before the you know the commissioners and yourself hearing examiners morning.

There, this is uh again as you indicated.

This is for case A of A through D.

Um, the others are over there in the corner.

I will note that there are additional documents that uh we were not able to print off as uh last night.

Um we will have someone print them off at the day, although those are related to case D, correct?

Yes, so I I submit that we will be able to tackle that probably during the recording lunch, and so we can come back with uh the full record of documents.

I understand that.

Um add from reference.

No, thank you.

Just so you know, uh, we've been asked to consider uh having a third day.

Maybe a fourth day, who knows?

Uh that's all I have to say.

Uh no one really sure.

Uh, but we're going to uh stick around after today's date and see about uh you had a chance to discuss this thing between yourselves and uh right now we're looking at March 17th or 18th.

Yeah, the two days that we have a rule availabilities.

Okay, so kind of keep that in the back of your heads in terms of getting the getting the next uh third day and on this on this matter.

So keep that in mind, please.

And also for your witnesses, so they can be kind of find out which one works best for them, etc.

etc.

But as you can imagine, we have so much flexibility, and uh we'll do our best.

And I know you will too.

So with that in mind, uh let's go ahead.

Um we're not quite hearing your witnesses here now.

Yes, our witnesses are here.

Um prior to openings and prior to the behavior testimony.

Uh I would like to just identify that as is customary the chief's case, I was go first.

I have not subpoenaed any of the copious amounts of witness here, except for my three sergeants.

Um, I would request that we have a brief consultation now just to see if any one of these uh folks who've been subpoenaed are actually want to testify today, and if not to release them from their subpoena for today, so that way they can get back to the work of the city, which is protecting and serving and not sitting in this room waiting.

Okay, that's that's we chatted with any of these folks as to whether or not we know which ones you can call.

Well, so for us to answer that question, we need to know when they're gonna be done.

So that's the we've tried to figure that out.

We don't have uh clear understanding of what that is, so that's uh that's what that is.

So well, I understand uh the concern for the students money here.

Um that's it's all like I said before, and I'll say it again, I intend to be done today.

Um I have three witnesses to call and officer Vinny and uh former officer Benitas, so it doesn't depending on how long your process animation will take.

Okay, so with that in mind, it sounds like we'll start tomorrow then.

And uh I don't mind uh releasing all the witnesses uh for today as long as we assume I mean the the danger here is that they'll get an end sometime before the end of the day, and then what are we gonna do at that time?

So if if that's okay with the commission, I don't have any problem releasing these witnesses for the until Friday.

Well, can we at least release them for the morning?

Uh and have maybe have a phone check in for the afternoon session that maybe we'll have a better idea by that time.

You know, I mean, I don't know.

I think that's kind of where we have to get or gonna have to kind of go on incremental uh considerations here.

And if you do that, uh I'll be flexible with you, uh be flexible with me too, uh, so that we can hopefully uh have the people be doing the best they can for for the primary purpose, which is being law enforcement officers, and uh uh does that work for those law enforcement officers.

Could we use all right?

Bring your microphone up to you.

Thank you very much.

All right, all right.

So what we're gonna do then uh is uh you have a phone number you want them to check in with uh so that you so that you know where you stand, you have a better uh uptake as to prior as the timing is concerned.

Sure.

Uh can I just take two minutes to get the numbers together again?

Please thank you.

Um process will come up.

And then she can do that.

We'll wrap up.

I just have to react on that.

I have to eat these things.

So the ones we have to do.

It's not okay.

So once the moment the whole day this afternoon is correct.

One six A case.

You were not correct, Commissioner.

Um we had to um switch it around just slightly um long the volume of it and uh one seven one is the A case.

Personal order one seven one is case A.

And maybe once everything is out, I think you'll understand why I structure them like that.

I didn't well I'm gonna ask you that because I I we'd already said uh set this thing up to be something over the certainly, and I I didn't want to interrupt you as you were speaking there.

Um so case A is going to be referenced to personnel order 171.

Okay, case B is uh or referencing personnel order 2025 169.

Case C is personal order 235170.

And case D is referencing personnel order 225172.

Well, it's not 171 because we're starting with that one.

All right, so we'll try to use that in mind uh for where we're looking at our miracle uh exhibit numbers up on top.

It's very important for everybody.

Okay, all right.

That being said, so we're gonna check in with you uh see where you stand.

Yeah.

Yeah, and okay, and then uh we have try to be going on one.

Okay, uh and uh we'll go from the area.

We'll see we'll see how these go on a little bit, try and give it a little bit of you know, we'll see but we'll better idea by that whether or not we are gonna be using the full day for for the first case, so we and then we'll move on from there.

Okay, let's try.

It's gonna be uh wait C forposition.

All right, and then here the examiner again, just so uh all parties are clear here.

My understanding of how this will go is we will proceed through case A through D for phase one, finalize that, and we'll be a decision on case one as through cases A through D, and then we'll proceed to case, and then we'll if if necessary, we'll proceed to phase two, and then same thing cases A through D.

Okay.

Just want to make sure that everyone's I didn't understand that at all.

Okay, yeah, there are two phases in these cases, right?

The first phase is is liability, whether or not there's a violation or not.

Then after that is determined, we go into closed session and determine whether or not that in fact exists on A, B, C, and D.

Okay.

Then we come back out, we announce whether or not there is gonna be a phase two on any one of the ABC or D or all of them.

Okay, then we begin that process.

And then at the end of phase two, we go into closed session again, and then we decide which is the appropriate penalty of any uh for the respective uh personnel matters that are before us the A B C or D.

No, that's my understanding.

Okay, that's then that's that's exactly how we're how we're gonna do it.

And so it's like four separate cases rolled into one.

I hate to say that it's not really as consolidated as everyone's work that's kind of a misnomer.

Uh but it's better to do it this way because it gets too confusing otherwise to be candid with you.

And uh, so let's just try to we'll try to work it uh this way, and uh I'm sure we'll we'll get through fine.

All right, if there's any questions that come up, throw them out.

That's all I can say to you, and uh we'll we'll address them and make sure that uh everyone is on the same page.

Okay, all right.

That being said, uh first of all, I'd like to ask do you have an opening statement, Ms.

Hadley?

Uh briefly, just based upon the consolidation of it.

However, I'd be willing to waive if uh appellants counsel uh does not also do an opening.

All right, cross.

Do you have an opening?

All right, okay.

Well, then we can go ahead and call your first witness uh then Miss Hedley.

Okay, um the uh Chiefs first witness in this case will be Sergeant Adam Riley.

Hey, Sergeant, please step up over here is a seat and you remain standing and be sworn reach right hand.

You solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you got the matter now before this commission.

I do all right, please have a seat, sir, and then uh state your full name for the record and spell your first and last name, please.

My name is Adam Police Sergeant Adam Riley, A D A M R I L E Y.

All right, proceed.

I'm sorry, hearing examiner before we proceed.

Uh where are uh counsel or uh witnesses uh exhibition exhibits Mike has them okay, we'll get them over there.

Thank you, Herod Examiner.

I just saw that that was we should probably make sure that we have that there.

Thanks.

Good morning, Sergeant Riley.

Can you please explain to me how you are employed?

I'm currently employed with the Milwaukee Police Department.

And what capacity?

Can you briefly uh describe for me uh your history with the Milwaukee Police Department?

Sure.

Uh I've been employed since 2001.

I'm entering my 25th year.

I've been currently uh sergeant since 2008, and I've been at the internal affairs division since 2021, which uh will be five years.

Can you uh identify for the commissioners the breakdown of the internal affairs division?

Yeah, the Internal Affairs Division is compromised, uh excuse me, is uh has several people that are assigned to it.

Uh we'd conduct uh investigations regarding uh allegations of misconduct against department members.

Um can you identify for the commissioners uh how uh if uh the breakdown between the SIS division and the IAS division?

Sure.

Uh basically the SIS is special investigations section uh that uh is uh with a a lieutenant and detectives, and they strictly look at uh criminal matters, any allegations of criminal false doing by depart members.

Uh the part that I'm assigned to uh is for the rule side, uh violations of the code of conduct, standard operating procedures and such.

Are there times where in both the special investigation division and the internal division?

I'm sorry, SIS and IAS review um similar allegations?

They do.

Okay, can you describe for me when those situations happen?

Uh members are they they can get arrested off duty, uh operating while intoxicated, some sort of local law and uh some sort of local ordinance violation, a state law violation, sometimes those revolve around theft, uh, etc.

And then how would that be investigated under your division?

Uh typically when it comes to criminal matters, the uh special investigation section first reviews the uh allegations, they conduct your separate investigation.

Once it is concluded, they're done doing whatever they have to do, such as interviewing people, uh, then their reports come to our office, the internal affairs side, and then that's when we conduct our investigation.

And then the investigation would be into whether rule was violated?

Correct.

Okay.

Is there a particular work rule that indicates officers shall not violate laws?

Yes, that's uh under our integrity uh 3.00 core value guiding principle 305.

Okay.

Um, is that generally the investigation or is that generally the uh allegation of a work rule violation if an officer is arrested?

Typically, yes.

Okay.

Can you describe for me your procedure with investigating cases uh generally as to as it relates to violations of 305?

Yeah, uh so the investigation uh depending if it happens within the city boundaries or not, uh the detectives first would get all the reports, they would get anything from the other agency that was conducting the investigation, uh body worn camera footage, anything like that, they would then review all the memory all the information and they would summarize it into their own report.

Uh again, there's a little bit of a difference between it happening within Milwaukee, which is something that they would personally investigate versus something that happens outside of the city limits.

That would be something they just simply collect, uh examine and then give it to our office, and then that's when we continue our investigation.

Okay.

Um during your approximately five years with Internal Affairs Division, how many cases have you investigated officers on who uh allegedly had violated rule 305?

Uh several dozen.

Um generally familiar with Mr.

Benidez?

Yeah.

Okay.

Have you ever worked with him directly?

No.

Have you ever supervised him in your supervisory capacity?

No.

Um, do you know him personally outside of work?

No.

Is it fair to say that the only interaction that you've had with Mr.

Benitez to the best of your memory is uh this particular investigation?

Yeah.

Okay.

Can you identify Mr.

Benitez for the commissioners, please?

Yeah, he's sitting over there uh across the table, has uh like a beige sweater on.

Okay, thank you.

Um there'll be noted the identification of Mr.

Officer Benitez.

Thank you.

I'm gonna turn your attention now to the investigation that you conducted into Mr.

Benitas.

Um can you explain to me how you were first assigned this particular matter to investigate?

Yeah, uh at the time there was some different supervisors, different lieutenants that worked up there.

Uh they just simply gave me the case file and were told that I was going to be looking into the matter regarding uh Mr.

Benitas's arrest from March 4th, 2024.

Okay.

I'll request that you go ahead and um uh look at exhibit A3, exhibit A3.

Exhibit A3.

Let me know when you're there.

Yep.

Is this the initiation memorandum?

Yes.

Okay.

And does this identify how you came to uh be assigned to investigate the allegations of workplace violations from Mr.

Benitez?

Yes.

Okay.

After you received the um order to investigate Officer Benitez or Mr.

Benitez for violations of Rule 305.

What did you do next?

Uh what I do is I look over the uh investigative reports that the special investigation section had filed.

I will leak over the reports that the um other law enforcement agency filed uh in this particular incident.

Um Mr.

Benitez was arrested by the Mosquego Police Department.

So I review their police reports.

Uh if there's any body worn camera, which there was, I would watch that just to make sure everything that they're describing uh in the reports is that's accurate with what's on uh depicted on your body worn cameras and other any of the miscellaneous paperwork that comes along with it.

Okay.

Um I turn your attention to exhibits A5 and A6.

Let me know when you're there.

Yep, I got both of them.

Okay.

Exhibit A5.

Can you describe for the commissioners what this document is?

Yes, this is a like a the first page is a cover report from a now retired Lieutenant Tom Leeske.

He was the lieutenant that was assigned to the SIS section, uh special investigation section.

Uh, he did a little cover report that basically just went over uh an actual report filed by the special investigation section, detective Rosemary Colindo.

Uh as I explained earlier, that that detective would have gone out to the Mosquegol Police Department, would have collected all the information, such as the police reports, the arrest reports, and then reviewed it.

Uh she then summarized everything that she noted on the body worn cameras and the police reports, and then uh Lieutenant Leeske then essentially summarized uh as a shorter version of what she did and whether or not the investigation was substantiated or not.

And what does it mean when an investigation for SIS is substantiated against an officer?

It's basically saying it's sustained.

Okay.

Um after reviewing the SIS file, that's exhibit five A5.

Uh, you indicated that you would um review the um police reports and the body worn camera submitted by the arresting agency.

Yeah.

So is that uh contained the police reports are those what's contained in exhibit A6?

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay.

When you reviewed the body worn camera and the uh corresponding written documentation in your hand in exhibit A6, what did you note about the allegations against Mr.

Benitez?

Uh I noticed uh I look at the date and the time.

I read over uh the circumstances, how the call originally came into the Mosquego Police Department, uh their arrival, the officers, what they uh what they did upon their arrival, who they talked to, the statements that they obtained, uh, and then they're ultimately their decision to arrest uh uh Mr.

Benitez.

Okay.

Can you describe for me what that particular circumstances were?

Uh yeah, on March 4th, uh 2024, 5 45 p.m., the Muskego Police Department received a phone call from a uh Erica Benitez, who I believe was then Mr.

Benitez's wife.

Uh she had reported that there was a domestic violence uh incident at their residence.

Uh when they arrived, they spoke with both parties.

It sounded like what the issue was is that Miss Benitez uh was in her bedroom looking at her cell phone, and that uh Mr.

Benitez came in.

Uh there's a different variations of the story, but ultimately uh he grabbed her phone out of her hand, uh, twisted her hand, caused her some pain, and uh caused her to fear for her safety, which is why she called the police.

Is there anything else that happened with the cell phone?

Uh the cell phone was eventually given back to her.

Uh, and then she called the police.

Excuse me, let me back up.

So he leaves the room, she then closes the door, then calls the police.

Uh Mr.

Benitez is trying to pick the lock, uh, presumably because he can hear her making the phone call, and that uh that's when he decided not to go all the way through the door, and uh then she the police were notified and they came.

And you watched uh Mrs.

Benitez indicate all of this to the officers in Mosquego?

Correct, that is captured on their body worn camera.

All right, and you also reviewed that in the documents that's a um the written documents and contained in exhibit a six.

Yeah.

After you reviewed the body worn camera from the Mosquego police department as well as the corresponding written documentation and exhibit A6.

What did you do next?

Uh then I started to file my own report.

I simply what I do is I summarize the uh the sequence of events, uh establishing that whether or not Mr.

Benita's violated the guiding principle 305.

Okay.

Are you tasked with um proving or disproving the underlying domestic violence incident?

No.

Okay, why not?

Uh that's that's the court's decisions.

I'm simply to investigate him for code of conduct violations.

Okay.

Um after you start to draft your report, do you um ever speak with Mr.

Benitos?

Uh the only time I speak with him is when he's actually served with one of our PI21 forms that mandates that he comes to our office and uh answers to basically like what happened that day.

Okay.

Can you turn your exhibit or turn your attention rather to exhibit A4?

Um page document base labeled 318.

Yes.

All right.

Is this that um uh compelled interview statement or compelled interview notice that you were referring to?

Yes.

All right.

Is it also colloquially known as the PI21 within the Milwaukee Police Department?

Correct.

So if I use those terms interchangeably, you'll understand what I mean?

Yeah.

Okay.

So did you in fact hold um Mr.

Benitez's PI21 interview on December 12, 2024?

Yes.

Okay.

Can you describe for me what you did to prepare for the PI21 interview with Mr.

Benitez?

Yeah, uh what I do is again, I look over all this stuff that I what I spoke of.

I look over all the uh you know the facts and circumstances, the reports, and then I generate a series of questions pretty much related to the to uh to what happened that evening.

Uh asking them kind of like his version essentially, and did he believe he violated uh guiding principle 305?

Okay.

Um what were Mr.

Benitez's response to the your questions?

Uh generally speaking, you it was he denied uh Mrs.

Ms.

Benitez's versions of events.

Uh he you know just said that he did not hurt her as the way she described.

Uh he acknowledges that they had the interaction, but she described it as uh, you know, that he was uh had a threatening manner about him, what she felt he did not.

Uh he said he never twisted her arm that would cause her pain.

Uh there was kind of a you know there was some more little bit of history, like what happened earlier that day that she had described at the Mosquego police officers.

Uh we discussed that.

He pretty much just generally disputed everything that was that was what his wife explained.

Did Mr.

Benitez admit that he was criminally charged with uh a domestic violence incident?

Yes.

Okay.

Can you turn your attention to exhibit A7 for me, please?

It's gonna be Bates labeled pages Benita's 353 to 363.

Yep.

Um can you tell me what this is?

Yeah, this is a uh state of uh Wisconsin C Cap is what we call it.

It just shows that um the case was uh charged by the Wakeshaw County District Attorney's Office, and uh this goes over the all the notes during the uh court hearings.

Okay.

Do you know what ultimately wound up happening with the criminal charge against Mr.

Benitez?

Uh actually, this is um exhibit A7.

It shows it's petitioner versus Christopher Benitez.

Just want to make note of that.

This is uh My apologies.

Please turn to page uh three fifty nine in that same exhibit, exhibit A 359.

Ah, got it.

Okay, I'm gonna get the right thing now.

What page?

What are we doing?

Sure, we're in exhibit A7.

Yeah, okay.

We're on Bates label number 359, 359.

Okay, I got you.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Um, can you is this the document that you were referring to earlier?

Yeah, what I what I originally believe I was describing.

This is what I'm this is what I'm looking at now.

Which is the Waukeshaw County case, uh, state of Wisconsin versus Christopher Benitez.

Okay.

Um that's turned back to the beginning of that page in 353.

Can you identify for me what this is?

Uh petitioner versus Christopher Benita's looks like uh the petitioner filed a domestic abuse of temporary strain or against Mr.

Benita's.

And is this in relation to the underlying March 3rd, 2024 incident wherein Mrs.

Benitas called the Muskegel Police Department?

I'm gonna object for foundation purposes, and moreover, these documents ultimately speak for themselves.

There's no foundation that this uh witness uh has any expertise in explaining to us or has any evidence uh knowledge that would be helpful in explaining to this commission what these documents say, other than the documents themselves?

I'll listen to see what is being stated, uh see whether or not it did explains them better or whether or not there needs further explanation.

Can I also have a ruling on the foundation?

Well, I'm gonna let him, I'm going to let him testify.

I think he has foundation because that's his job.

His job is to look at these things, uh, these records is as it were, and uh did go from there, you know, you know whether or not what weight we want to give to that is is another question.

Well, but there's there hasn't been any testimony to that fact, but he just started testifying as to whether he hasn't let her lay the foundation as to as to where we're where he's at, because right now he right now I think uh that's where you gotta be overrule the objection.

So officer, I'm sorry, Sergeant Riley, did you review uh this set of documents in your investigation of into Mr.

Benitas?

Yeah, okay.

And reviewing pages 353 to 358 in exhibit A7.

Did you review that set of documents?

Yes, I've seen this.

Okay, and what did you do with this document?

Uh this is just uh so Mr.

Benitas was arrested on Monday, March 4th, 2024.

Uh the filing date for this um Waukeshaw County case number 2024 C B 000390 was filed on March 6th, 2024.

Uh typically I'm trying to find it in this paperwork, but sometimes even though it says petitioner doesn't not name who filed this, uh this is presumably gonna be Mrs.

excuse me, Miss Benitas's uh attempt to file a restraining order against Mr.

Benitas.

Okay, thank you.

Did you identify this or did you have conversation uh about these documents, particularly in A7 with Mr.

Benitas during his PI21?

Uh no, not the petitioner.

Well, yes, that we did.

We didn't uh it was brought up, but I didn't actually reference like any paperwork in front of him or anything like that.

Okay.

Um after you conducted the PI 21 interview with Mr.

Benitas, did Mr.

Benitas provide any information to you that you needed to follow up on?

Not that I recall.

Okay.

If an individual during his or her PI21 interview with you provides information that requires follow-up, do you conduct follow-up?

Yeah.

Okay.

Is that a determination that you make based upon statements that are made during the PI21?

Yes.

So following Mr.

Benita's PI21 interview.

Um did you finish drafting your summary report that you were referenced earlier?

Yes.

And that summary report is exhibit a two.

Yes.

Okay.

Can you describe for the commissioners what a summary report is?

Uh it's my investigation.

It's from the time that it's uh assigned to me until the time of completion, which typically is when I'm done interviewing the member of what referred to as a PI21 interview.

Uh and again, it's a summary of everything that's uh occurred from March 4th up until when I said finished my interview, which I believe I did that on November the date.

Tip that microphone down towards you.

December 12th, 2024, when I conduct my interview with Mr.

Benita's.

Okay.

Subsequent to you drafting the summary report that's in your hand.

Did you have conversations with any supervisors regarding uh the potential charges against Mr.

Benitas?

I'll speak to my lieutenants about it and the captain if need be.

Okay.

And did you speak with then uh uh lieutenant or one associated?

Yes.

Okay.

Um do you make the specific recommendation to sustain charges?

That that's the lieutenant's job.

Okay.

Do you recall what Lieutenant then Lieutenant Asacio indicated he would do with your report as to the allegations and to Mr.

Benitas?

Uh he would sustain the 305.

Okay.

Um is that sustaining of the 305 included in exhibit A one?

Yes.

Okay.

And what does that mean when a charge is sustained against an officer?

Uh that means that we establish that there's preponderance of evidence to continue forth with the internal investigation, which means at some point it'll make the uh the uh chief's disciplinary review at some point.

Okay.

Um are you uh the process that you engaged here in terms of the investigation into the charges against Mr.

Benitas?

Um and discussing it with the sergeant, discussing it with the lieutenant, etc.

Is that the typical process that you follow with all investigations regarding charges in 305?

Yes.

Um, do you have anything else in which the commission uh should know?

No.

At this point in time, I'm finished with this witness.

Okay, cross.

It's got cross.

Sir, can you hear me?

Yes, okay.

Um when did you first uh get this case assigned to you?

Uh November 1st.

And when uh who assigned it to you?

Uh that would be the lieutenant's okay, and which the lieutenant?

Uh Lieutenant Stacio at the time, Lieutenant Stacio.

Okay, and that's the person who made the decision uh to refer these charges up the chain of command?

Yes.

Okay.

Did you participate in that decision?

No, I come up with what charges that is appropriate, but I don't have any say as far as who makes those decisions.

So you don't have any knowledge about how that decision was made.

Also true.

Uh just by what's in the report.

Okay, and that's the report you wrote, correct?

And did was the decision made before after you wrote the report?

Should have been made after.

Okay.

And that's normal how things go, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, so fair to say you don't you have no information that would help this inform uh commission uh understand how this decision to refer the charges was made.

Also true.

Yeah, okay, fair enough.

Let's back up and talk about your report then for a moment or two.

Um there is before you wrote your report, there was also some investigatory work that you relied on uh by uh officer gallegos.

Do I understand that correctly?

Officer Gallegos, I don't know that name.

And I may have mixed that up.

There was another officer, uh, sorry, Detective Galindo, and I apologize for that.

Uh you worked on the uh your report is based off of the work of Detective Galindo.

Is that true?

Yes, okay.

Do you work with that person?

No.

Okay, where does that person work in relation to you?

Uh so the internal affairs division, we keep again.

I addressed this in the beginning, we keep our offices separate.

Okay.

Uh she works in a different room down the hall from where I work.

I got it.

Okay.

Does she have the same supervisors as you do?

No, she has a different supervisor.

Okay, who is that?

Uh at that time it would have been Lieutenant Tom Leeske.

Okay, and ultimately, who's the captain?

Uh Captain Liam Looney.

And that's your captain as well.

Correct.

Thank you.

Okay.

So do you um and you understood based on your investigation that these charges were ultimately mayor, the incident happened in March?

True.

Yes.

Okay.

Why did you start or did you ever learn why you started to investigate this only in November?

Uh excuse me, the special investigations section had this uh before I did.

Okay.

And they I don't know.

I don't have anything to do with when they pick up the reports, when they review the case, when they file the reports, it's simply just given to me when when it's available when they're when they completed their investigation.

Okay, so but were you ever aware of whether the special investigation section um completed the investigation?

Uh when it's given to me is when I'm aware of it.

Okay, so but is that a normal course that the uh SIS that completes this investigation, hands it off to you?

They hand it off to our office.

Uh it gets filters a little bit of a filter process where it goes to our lieutenant and then it sits in their office until they're ready to hand it out to to the investigators.

Okay.

And can you just help me remember what exactly is uh the allegation that you investigated?

Uh it was guiding principle 305.

Okay, and what does that say?

If you if you don't know, you don't know, and I can be happy to provide you with the document, but let's be clear on that first.

Guiding principle says excuse me, sir.

If you don't know, you don't know, and then can you answer that question?

Do you know what it says?

Yes, I know what it says.

Okay, and but do you need to read the document to know what it says?

If you want me to be very precise, yes, I will read the document.

I prefer to read the document.

All right, I'm happy to let you do that.

Please read the document and tell us what it's uh guided principle 305 says department members shall obey local ordinances and state and federal laws, whether on or off duty, any violation of ordinances or laws in any jurisdiction shall be reported to the member's supervisor as soon as practical.

Okay, and as far as I understood it, you're essentially investigating the first sentence in that uh in that guiding principle.

Did I understand that right?

Yeah, okay.

And uh who is told you what guiding principle to investigate?

Uh I look at the allegation and I can figure that out for myself.

Okay, and then what law did Mr.

Uh Benita's fail to uh obey?

Well, originally he was arrested for battery domestic violence by the Mosquego police department, and but he was later charged by the Waukeshaw County District Attorney's Office for disorderly conduct domestic violence.

Okay, can you answer my question though?

Yeah, so which law did he fail to obey?

Domestic violence law.

Okay, and why do you believe that to be the case?

Well, that's what his wife reported.

Okay, I got it.

And uh, you're a police officer, right?

Yes, and you've been trained, I assume to handle death massive violence investigations, just for example, you've been paying in the arts of a police investigation.

Is that fair?

Yes, I hope and you understand uh that we have a law and uh we have a judicial process, right?

Yes, okay, and you understand that the police investigate crimes, right?

Yes, okay, and that ultimately that the people who determine whether a crime has been committed, that's a different branch in the police, right?

You understand that?

Yes, okay.

So and you understand also understand the difference between an allegation, right?

Yes, and if a finding of fact, true?

Yes, okay.

So you understood uh when you filed this report that there was allegations made against Mr.

Benitas, true?

Yes, okay, and you also understood at some point that the police arrested Mr.

Uh Benita's also true.

Yes, okay, and you understood that the DA had filed charges, also true.

Yes, okay, and but you know here sitting here today telling the people of the city of Milwaukee that you know the difference between being found guilty of a crime and being alleged to have committed a crime, isn't that also true?

There's a difference between the two.

Yes.

It was alleged, yes.

I understand that.

Okay, so but just so we can have a clean record.

My question ultimately gets to the fact that whether or not you understand the difference between someone being alleged with a crime and having uh been found to have committed a crime.

What's the answer to that, please?

I understand, yes.

What's the difference?

An allegation is somebody that just says that you know you did something, right?

And being found, I'm sorry, rephrase that.

Well, explain to are you able to explain to us or please explain to us what the difference between an allegation of someone committing a crime and someone being found guilty of committing a crime is?

Please explain that to me.

Allegations is what somebody reports being found guilty is uh suing that you've been through the you know through the court system and the courts found you guilty.

Is it by a jury, by court trial, something like that?

Well, right, and we say, I mean, we know, and you know, right, that when someone when somebody actually goes through the criminal process and has been found guilty, then we can say that that person has committed a crime, right?

That's yeah, we can say that that person has disobeyed an ordinance, true?

Yes, okay, but we can't if you said that beforehand.

Do you think uh what would that be a fair thing?

I'm gonna withdraw that and ask it a different way.

If uh can you say, based on your knowledge as a police officer, that if someone is alleged to have committed a crime, that's the same thing as them committing a crime?

It's an allegation, it's somebody's somebody's saying that you did something wrong.

Great, and you knew that on November 1st, 2024, didn't you?

That this was an allegation against him.

Yes, okay.

You also knew the difference between an allegation and being found guilty of a crime, also true.

Yes, okay.

Now, uh, were you ever aware of a uh motor vehicle accident that Mr.

Uh Benitez was victim of?

Uh can you can you expound?

Is there some more information?

Well, you understand what a motor vehicle accident is, right?

Yes, but it's okay, and you understand who Mr.

Benitez is, right?

Yes.

Were you ever aware of Mr.

Benita's being a victim of a motor vehicle accident?

Okay, that's still a bag.

Are you talking about on duty off duty?

Any time in the in your entire existence of the universe, do you have any awareness of Mr.

Benitas being uh I mean, I can what's so hard about this question, sir?

I might have Jack Test to badger and the witness, please.

It's argumentative be precise as to was this during his or during his time as an officer on duty, was it off duty or that's a different question?

Sir, you're aware that Mr.

Benitez was struck uh while on duty uh by another vehicle, aren't you?

Yes, okay.

And when did you were you aware that on November 1st, 2024, right?

Uh he referenced something about uh traumatic brain injury that he had from an I I believe it was an accident.

I believe that's something that was referenced.

Great.

I've only read your report a few times here, but do you say anything about uh the traumatic brain injury in this report?

Yes, what what do you say about that?

Which exhibit uh I believe this is A2.

Sorry on uh page seven, okay, or excuse me, page six.

And and sir, if you can just help us out at the bottom, there is what we call Bates numbers, it'll say 0031.

Can you tell us five three one five?

Thank you, sir.

Okay, so this is the second to last page.

Okay, and where are we looking?

Uh that'd be a second paragraph.

Second paragraph.

Okay.

Officer Benitas denied that he was physically slash emotionally abusive towards his wife and felt it was more defensive because the insults would come back towards him.

Officer Benita's stating during this time he had a work-related injury, traumatic brain injury, which it affected him mentally and caused him to be very impulsive.

Do you see that there?

Yes.

Okay, did that factor into your uh the ultimate recommendation in your report at all?

Uh no, we he was arrested by the Masigo Police Department.

They established probable cause to arrest him, and he was charged by the Waukeshaw County District Attorney's Office.

Uh, and that's the basis of violating guidance principle 305.

Got it.

Okay.

So it was the the allegations were the basis for uh the you putting this report up to Mr.

Uh or Lieutenant rather um that you sent it to, right?

Yes, okay.

Okay, and um did you discuss the brain injury with your lieutenant at that time?

Uh like a specific uh like a conversation, like a verbal conversation about that, written verbal, any kind of communication.

Oh you read over my report and summarized it, uh, but nothing like we actually had a talk about it.

Okay, did you ever have a talk about hey?

Uh Benita's had not actually been convicted of any crime.

Yes, we were aware that his case was still open at that point.

Okay, so it was basically so we we can say that it was uh the lieutenant's opinion that Mr.

Uh Benita's violated the ordinance.

That that's what we can say, yeah.

Okay, and that's what we're here today on, right?

The lieutenant's opinion?

Yes, okay.

Do you know if the lieutenant watched any of the body warrant camera?

I'm not aware of that.

Okay, so you don't know if he was able to make any credibility determinations on Miss Benita's?

No.

Did you know if he spoke with Mr.

Benitez?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay, I have no more questions for you.

Thank you.

All right, read.

Briefly, thank you.

You were just asked whether the allegations were like allegations that Mrs.

Benita's lodged against her husband were the basis for uh the ultimate determination that 305 was violated.

Do you recall getting that question?

Yes.

Is it the allegations alone or is the allegations plus the fact that he was charged?

Plus he was charged.

Okay.

Do you know what ultimately wound up happening with Mr.

Benita's case?

Uh the Wisconsin C CAP, the case was dismissed.

Uh, and that according to the notes, uh, they said that uh he was gonna receive a citation.

A citation instead of uh criminal citation of criminal conviction, no further questions.

Any recrut?

Yeah, just to be clear.

When you you had no you neither you nor Mr.

Uh the your lieutenant had any knowledge of what the ultimate disposition in the case would be uh at that uh let's say when you said that the charges were sustained.

No, no more questions.

All right, we got we have a few here.

Commissioner, yes, for it.

Um Sergeant uh are you familiar with the difference between uh finding of criminal liability and civil action?

Somewhat I yeah, okay.

What does the uh state have to prove in order to maintain a criminal conviction?

What's the level of proof?

Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Okay, and what's the level of proof that's necessary for your work in the in the internal affairs division?

Preponderance of evidence.

Thank you.

Other questions?

No.

All right.

Ms.

Follow.

I have no questions.

And I have no questions.

Very fine.

Thank you very much, Sergeant.

Appreciate it.

Call your next witness.

Okay.

For the sake of expediency, um, I do intend to ask Mr.

Benitas a series of questions regarding these.

However, I do intend to ask him questions about all four cases.

My thought process would be to keep it expeditious, would be to go through the sergeants first and then have Mr.

Benitez testify as to all four rather than have him come up and back and back and forth.

Are you gonna be referring to uh four different sets of exhibits then?

Uh likely not.

As long as you don't do that, I'll I'll go along with you.

Uh, but you know, if we're gonna be going jumping around, certainly exhibit A group, exhibit C group to exhibit D group, and then you know I understand.

It's okay.

If you could keep it keep an orderly program, I'll let you go through it and we'll we'll figure it out.

If there's a problem, I'll let you know.

Thank you, hearing examiner.

Uh the chief next calls Sergeant Latanya Diedrich, and this is gonna be for case B as an boy.

So we'll need the B exhibits now.

All right, please remain standing.

You soundly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you guide the matter now before this commission.

All right, please have a seat and then state your full name and spell your first and last name.

Latanya Dietrich, L-A-T-A-N-Y-A, D I D R I C H.

All right, thank you very much.

Proceed.

Thank you, Hannah Examiner.

Good morning, Sergeant Dietrich.

Um, can you describe for our commissioners here um how you are employed?

I am currently a police sergeant with the Milwaukee Police Department and I'm assigned at the Internal Affairs Division.

Great.

Can you identify for the commissioners your history with the department?

Um I've been employed for 18 years.

I've been a sergeant for roughly six and a half years, and I've been assigned to internal affairs for about four years.

Okay.

During your time at the Internal Affairs Division, can you describe for me what uh your job duties have been?

Um, I primarily investigate um allegations of misconduct, whether they are internally generated or citizen complaints.

Have you had the opportunity to investigate cases where an officers are alleged to have been a wall?

Yes.

And what do you know a wall to be?

Um absent without leave.

Okay.

Is there a specific SOP at issue that identifies four officers?

Um what their expectations are with reporting to work?

Yes.

Okay.

Um is when you are tasked with investigating officers who have been charged with via uh with going AWOL or being absent without leave.

Um is that SOP what you uh refer to?

Yes.

Okay.

Can you identify for me, please?

Um, when an officer is accused of being a wall, how the officer, how you get assigned that case?

Typically the members' supervisor from their work location documents the allegations that the member may have not have been to work and didn't have permission to be at work, they document that on a memo and then they forward that to internal affairs um to initiate an internal investigation.

Okay.

And in your time at IA, I believe I do believe you said about four years.

Yes.

In your time investigating, how many cases of AWOL um have you I have you investigated?

A handful.

Okay.

Uh more than 10.

Probably less than 10.

Okay.

How are you familiar with Mr.

Benitas?

I was assigned two investigations in which um it was alleged that Mr.

Benitez was a wall on two separate occasions.

Okay.

And again, I just want to make sure that our commissioners who are being passed documents right now heard that.

How many investigations were you tasked with uh um investigating on with Mr.

Benitas?

I was assigned two separate investigations, two separate investigations.

Um from our previous conversations, do you know those to be cases B and C that will be presented here today?

Yes, okay.

I will we'll start with B and then we'll go to C to keep things orderly here.

Um let me just ask before we get into the specifics with the documentation.

Have you ever worked with Mr.

Benitez?

No.

Have you ever supervised Mr.

Benitez?

No.

Do you know him personally?

No.

Right.

Is it fair to say that the only interaction to the best of your knowledge that you've had with Mr.

Benita's while on duty or off duty is the dependency of these two investigations that you did?

Yes.

Okay.

Can I just go through here?

Yes.

Mike, is it possible if we can get the first part of the exhibits?

All right.

So recognizing that I just handed you a set of exhibits, and I do believe you'll likely have a couple extra pages coming through with paralegal Allen here momentarily, but we'll try to get this thing rolling here.

Um can you identify for me with focus on case B here?

Um, what the specific allegation uh was against Mr.

Benitez.

The allegation was that he did not report to work.

I believe it was November 14th, 2023, and that he did not have any um approved time off, and he did not have any sick time available to be at work.

Okay.

I have to have it's the 14th.

14th, yeah.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Um after you were assigned the uh allegation regarding to uh regarding Mr.

Benita's failure to report to work on November 14th, 2023.

What did you do?

I after I reviewed his um memorandum that was filed by the captain um Rob Teal from District One, um, included in the investigation were several other um memorandums filed by supervisors that are assigned to district one who had contact with um Mr.

Benitez um prior to November 14th and subsequently um through December 15th when he didn't report to work.

Okay.

Thank you.

These news pages are on one.

Oh, sorry.

These three loose pages.

Well, pardon for anything.

I ran out of staples.

I apologize.

Does anybody have any paper clips or anything?

Do you have any statement?

I've got some paper clips.

Okay, that'll that'll help you lost.

Oh, I understand.

We want to get a staple document.

Thank you.

All right, Sergeant Diedric, I'll turn your attention in the B exhibits to exhibit B, and that's Benita's zero's uh 20.

It's a single page document, double-sided exhibit B five.

Yes.

Okay.

Is this the initial um memorandum from Captain Teal that you were identifying previously?

Yes.

Okay.

And again, uh, can you identify for the commissioners, please?

What uh is expected of a captain at uh a district wherein um an individual has gone AWOL in terms of reporting it to IA?

Objection foundation.

Well, let's complete the question once we're in complete the question, then I'll see whether it's foundation.

Okay.

Can you identify for the commissioners?

What is expected of a captain at a district when he is reporting or she is recording a subordinate being um uh a wall to IA?

Same objection overruled.

Go ahead.

Um that captain would document the reason um that they would they document that they want an internal investigation initiated on a department member, and then they document for the specific reason why.

Okay.

And looking at exhibit B5, can you identify for me what the specific reason was?

Captain Teal believed Mr.

Benitez was a wall.

Um Mr.

Benitez was claiming an old duty injury, and um he was not approved any additional time off, and he did not report to work and he was not approved for FMLA, and he was not approved, did not have any available sick time.

Okay.

Does the captain identify in the exhibit what rule he believes Mr.

Benita's violated?

Yes.

And what rule would that be?

Um he specifically said it was code of conduct 100, which is competence referencing 105, which references that um uh a SOP hasn't been uh the member isn't aware of an SOP and the specific SOP that he said that he violent was the absence SOP, which is 010115 absent without leave.

Okay.

And then does that indicate that department members who have reported out sick and have exhausted all sick time or who have exhausted all other paid time and are absent from work without permission shall be considered absent without leave?

Yes.

Okay.

So after you reviewed exhibit B5, um, you indicated that you reviewed um additional documentation that was provided to um uh uh to you?

Yes.

Okay, can you turn to exhibit B6 for me, please?

Okay.

Now I recognize that these are a series of uh emails and other documents or sys series of emails and documents put together.

Um can you go ahead and take a look at that and identify for me um what you did with this information?

Yes, so I was I received this email chain, um, and it was communication between our medical section, um specifically Sergeant Misty Taylor, who was um in charge of the medical section, and her communication with um Mr.

Benitez regarding his um leave and that he was not um approved leave and that he should be reporting to work.

Okay, and what date did you receive that communication?

March 5th, 2025.

Okay.

After you reviewed that, um, did you review any other departmental documentation to substantiate uh to determine if Mr.

Benita's failed to appear to work in November of 2023?

Yes, I also reviewed um our lineups um which indicated that he was unpaid on November 14th.

Um I also reviewed documentation from our city time payroll system, which indicated that um officer Benita is also not at work on November 14th, 2023.

Okay.

Um with those documents, are you referring to documents B7 and B9?

I see B7.

Yes.

Okay.

So can you describe for the commissioners what exhibit B7 is, please?

B7 is the City of Milwaukee the controller report, and it gives you a breakdown of um time owed and allowed for specific things like vacation or sick leave or comp time.

It gives you an idea of how much time you have available in your bank to use.

Okay.

I'll draw your attention to in the block of individual officers with the listing across it, row one, two, three, four, the fourth one down from the top.

Recognizing that uh well, there was a whole punch there.

Do you recognize that to be Mr.

Benitez's name?

Yes.

Okay.

Can you describe for the commissioners what it is that's on row four and what they're looking at there?

So it if you read the top, it kind of tells you the employee vacation, sick leave, compensate comp time, um, injury hours, and then subsequently below it, it tells you how many hours the person has used year to date or how much time they have available where it's his balance.

Okay.

And what did Mr.

Benitez have available to him?

Um, as far as sick time, he had 2.7 hours.

Okay.

Any other time off that he had occurred?

Um, it does not look like he had.

Let me just look really quick.

I believe he had 3.4 hours of comp time.

Okay.

Um and 2.7 plus 3.4.

Is that um uh uh does that equal eight for the that the day?

No.

Okay.

So uh believe that exhibit is B7.

Can you look tell me?

And I believe you indicated that you also looked at B9, which is the roll call.

B9 is the lineup that every district puts out to account for each officer that is assigned to the district and what their duties are for that day.

Okay.

Looking at the um column and the I suppose the for the first column on the left where it indicates not on duty.

Yes.

Under officers, I see a Benita's Christopher.

Yes.

What does the initialism UPT mean?

That means unpaid time.

Okay.

And what does that mean to you as an investigating sergeant reviewing uh allegation of AWAL?

That means to me that Officer Benita did not have enough time.

Um any discretionary time or sick time to be paid for that day, and that he was not at work.

Okay.

Um during the dependency of your investigation, um, did you review a series of memoranda submitted by um sergeants at District One regarding Mr.

Benitas's absences?

Yes.

All right.

Can you go ahead and take a look for me at exhibit B8?

Bates labeled pages 36 through 53.

Yes.

Yes, they are.

Okay.

Can you tell me basically what these exhibits uh indicate to you?

Well, the initial um investigation started because November 14th, 2023.

Um, Officer Benita's didn't report to work um after he was told that he had to, um, and that he didn't have any available time.

Um sergeants had documented that they were in communication with Sergeant Taylor of the medical section, and she indicated that um Officer Benitez could not use injury on duty time any longer, and that if he wanted to, um if he was calling in sick, he needed to use his sick time.

However, he didn't have sick time available, so he needed to report to work.

Umfficer Benitez continued to call in um and not report to work um through December 15th, and these memorandums document various sergeants from district one reporting to his home on various loc uh various dates and ordering him into work.

Um several occasions they made contact with Officer Benitez, and he would say um things like well, I'll see you later tonight, or maybe I'll see you later tonight, and then he does not report to work.

Um, but each of these memos explains um their contact with Officer Benitez from roughly November 10th or November 11th when they learned that Officer Benitez could no longer use injury on duty until I believe he returned to work um December 13th for one day and then um attempted to call and then called in sick the 14th and then was ordered into work on the 15th.

Okay.

Um through your experience with the Moonkee Police Department over the last 18 years, I believe you said um if a officer is ordered to appear to work um by a superior, are they required to appear?

Yes, okay.

Um is an officer being uh required or ordered to come to work a lawful order?

Yes.

And why do you believe that to be a lawful order?

Well, in this specific circumstance, um, based on the emails that Officer Benita's received from the medical section stating that he needed to be at work and that his um him being off was not approved, and then the sergeants getting that information from the medical section and then responding to his home um and ordering him into into work, it appeared to be a lawful order.

Please, Michelle.

I just see this one signed by Cassandra Benitez.

Is that a relationship?

I will I can happily ask that question for you.

Um Sergeant uh Didric, the page one of exhibit v eight.

Um, are you familiar with who Cassandra Benita is?

Yes.

Okay, who is Cassandra Benita's to officer Benitas?

Um, she's a relative.

Okay.

Do you know how they're related?

I believe they're cousins.

Okay.

Okay.

So after you reviewed the exhibits um that we just just that we just went over, and that was would be exhibits five, B5 through B9.

Um, what did you do next?

I compiled um the information that I received and that I reviewed um into a summary report.

Okay.

Um as you were compiling those, did you ever have the occasion to speak with Mr.

Benitez himself?

Yes.

Okay.

When um uh how did you have the occasion to speak with Mr.

Benitez?

I served Mr.

Benitez with a PI21 um interview form and informed him of a day um that we we kind of agreed upon a day for him to return to conduct an interview.

Okay.

Um if you look at exhibit B4 for me.

Okay.

Is this that uh PI21 notification that you were just identifying?

Yes, okay.

Um, and I do know that it's on here as 319 2025.

Is that correct?

Yes.

How did you serve this document on Mr.

Benitez?

Um, I called his work location and had him report to um the Internal Affairs Division.

Okay.

And did Mr.

Benitas comply with that order?

Yes.

Okay.

When you um and and I just want to identify this here, these allegations that we're presently referencing are back in 2000 November to December 2023, correct?

Yes.

And you interviewed Mr.

Benitas in March of 25?

Yes.

Can you identify for me why the gap in time there?

I was not assigned this investigation, I believe, until December, I think 6th of 2024.

And I also I had his two investigations that I was conducting and uh multiple other investigations that I was handling at the same time.

Okay.

Fair to say that this is the most expeditious manner that you could have uh interviewed Mr.

Benitez.

Yes.

Okay.

Right.

Can you describe for me uh Mr.

Benitez's PI21 with respect to case B?

Um he I took into acknowledgement that the investigation was you know over a year old, um, and that some I he may have some hard time you know recalling specific events.

Um he basically said he couldn't recall being ordered in by the supervisors, but he wasn't disputing um what they were saying, and and he wouldn't he didn't want to say that they were lying, but he didn't recall a lot of things.

He didn't recall the email from Sergeant Taylor.

I presented it to him, and then he stated that he kind of remembered um, but ultimately he didn't think he did anything wrong because his doctor told him that he could be off.

So he believed that despite the department saying you need to be at work, his doctor said he didn't need to be at work, so he didn't appear.

Okay.

Um individual is doctor, um, to the best of your knowledge, when an individual's doctor indicates that they should not be at work, what should officers do?

Apply for FMLA or IFMLA.

Okay.

Um, and if they're not able to secure IFMLA or FMLAs or anything else that an officer could do to be off of work, I believe like a medical leave of absence.

And that's also available to officers, including yourself and Mr.

Benitas at the time.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, did you ask Sergeant Taylor at the medical section whether Mr.

Benitez had FMLA in November and December 2023?

Yes.

Okay.

And what was officer, what was Sergeant Taylor's response?

I believe um, and I I just want to make sure I'm not getting this confused with my second case, but he did from what I understand, he did have approved FMLA for the birth of a child, um, but nothing else.

Okay, not for a personal medical condition.

Okay.

Subsequent to your PI21 interview with off with Mr.

Benitas.

Um, what did you do next?

I compiled um my report.

I documented um our interview in the report, and then I submitted it to Lieutenant at the time, Lieutenant Sturma for review.

Okay.

Did you have conversations with Lieutenant Sturma regarding um the uh allegations against Mr.

Benitez?

I'm we may have had a discussion about what he said during his PI21.

Okay.

Um have you reviewed if you can go ahead and turn to exhibit B1 for me.

Have you reviewed this document?

I'm sorry, which one?

B1.

One yes.

Okay.

Um and having reviewed this document, um, do you know what charges uh Lieutenant then Lieutenant Sturma um substantiated against or sustained rather against um Mr.

Benitas?

Yes.

Well are they?

Um it looks like he was had a sustained violation of 010115B, um, which States Department members who've exhausted their sick and injury pay benefits and who are medically incapable of returning to duty shall as soon as possible apply for medical leave of absence or FMLA.

Members who failed to do so shall be considered absent from duty without leave and subject to discipline up to an including discharge.

He also had a sustained violation of 106, which says all depend department members shall report to duty um at the time designated by their supervisors, and then he also had a sustained violation, um, which was a core value 500 respect, referencing 503, which says they essentially is he failed to follow a lawful order given to him by a supervisor.

Okay.

Um after uh Lieutenant Sturma sustained these charges.

Did you do anything else with this case?

No, I I don't believe I I can't recall if I served him his charges or not regarding this case or not.

Okay.

Um, did you have the occasion to draft the specifications for the charges?

I did.

Okay.

Um can you turn to exhibit B11?

That's B11 for me, please.

Bates labels pages 80 through 85 I'm sorry, those numbers again.

80 through 85.

It's exhibit B11.

Thank you.

I feel like I'm in bingo.

I'm sorry, yes, I have it.

Okay.

So um, did you draft the specifications for these particular charges?

Yes.

Okay.

Are you aware um if this charges were um uh presented to the chief?

Yes, they were.

Okay.

Um and to the best of your knowledge, are you aware that um we are here today because Mr.

Benitez is appealing the discipline that he was imposed?

Yes, by these charges.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Okay, thank you.

Um has there ever been an occasion, and I believe you said you've investigated uh a handful of AWAL cases, I believe you said less than 10 from your approximation.

Has there ever been an occasion wherein um an AWALL has not been a charge against an officer has not been substantiated to your knowledge?

Yes.

Okay.

Um and and what happened in that case?

Um usually the member I when the allegation is brought to them that they didn't do X, Y, and Z, they bring in some sort of documentation to prove or yes, to prove why they were off or what proof or evidence they had to indicate that they had approval to be off of work.

Okay.

Um was Mr.

Benitas provided the opportunity to submit um information to you that he had approval to be off of work for absolutely from November to December 2023?

Yes.

Okay.

Um when was that?

Um during the PI21 interview.

Um when a member is served charges, um, we explained to them that they can do something called a response to charges, where they can provide a memorandum kind of explaining more as to why they don't believe they violated something, or if they have they don't believe my investigation was was thorough enough, or if they felt that there was more people that needed to be interviewed, um, they're allowed to submit a memorandum and any supporting documents that they have to us within 10 days of being served the charges.

Did Mr.

Benitas do that in this case?

No.

Did Mr.

Benitas provide you any documentation during his PI 21 interview?

No.

Did Mr.

Benitas uh provide you any documentation that substantiates uh his uh non-AWAL during um uh after his PI 21 interview?

No.

Did you allow him the opportunity to provide you with documentation?

Oh, for yes, for sure.

And um I did our interview was March nineteenth.

Excuse me, March nineteenth, and I this investigation wasn't turned in until April fourth.

So there was a significant amount of time for him to turn that information in, and then again, he had another opportunity with the response to charges.

Thank you, Mike.

All right, we're gonna call the case back on board here, and um you still have your witness on the standard with this witness now.

Yes, I can.

Okay.

Okay, what's the medical section?

They handle all things medical related regarding FMLA, IFMLA, leave of absence, medical leave of absence, things like that.

How do you know that?

How do I know that Misty's Taylor works there?

Yeah.

I've spoken to her at that work location, and I received emails from her, and the email signature states that she works there, and our um PC roster has her assigned there.

Okay.

Now, when I go look up the medical section on the website, I understand that there's a manager over the that section, and that person's Pamela Roberts.

Do you know who that person is?

I don't know her personally, no, but I know that she works there.

Okay.

And so do you have any idea what authority Sergeant Misty Taylor has with regard to the uh health department or section?

No.

Okay.

And uh do you know what FMLA is?

Yes.

How do you know that?

Um I've taken FMLA before.

Great, and just to be clear, that's the Family Medical Leave Act.

Yes.

Okay, and you're also aware of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Is that true?

Vaguely, yes.

Okay.

And are you what form just based on your knowledge uh applying for FMLA at the district?

Uh sorry, at the department, is there a form that's used to apply for that?

There, I believe there's several forms that depending on the type of FMLA that you're applying for, but yes.

Okay, is one of those a PP18?

Yes.

Okay.

And what and just so everybody understands, uh, because you said there was multiple forms.

What's the purpose of the PP18 form?

Um, I just want to make sure I understand.

I got that.

Is that the sick report?

I don't know.

I'm asking you for the only question that's before you, I guess, right now is uh, and just to backtrack as far as I understood, PP18 related to FMLA.

The answer is yes.

What's the purpose of that document within the FMLA structure if you know?

Well, let me just look at these documents to make sure that I am answering this question correctly.

Okay, about what a PP18 is.

And what documents are you looking at?

Um, currently I'm looking at exhibit B06.

Okay.

Um, no, the PP18.

Um I I correct myself, PP18 is not required when applying for FMLA.

Okay, what's the purpose of the PP18?

That is for when a member is injured on duty.

Okay, and that form we provide to the member, or if we convey the member to a hospital to be evaluated by a doctor, we provide that form to the doctor.

Okay.

So is there an FMLA application form as you understand it?

There are forms, yes, that you will use to apply for FMLA.

And what are those forms called?

Um, I understand you have to do a memorandum requesting FMLA.

There is a form.

Um, I don't know the specific form numbers, but I understand that there is a form that the doc your treating physician would fill out um explaining what you need the FMLA for.

Right.

Um, there is a calendar that the member would also fill out indicating on what days that they are how they're gonna be carried during their FMLA time.

Okay, and it's your testimony under oath that uh Mr.

Benitas did none of those things, true.

My testimony is that information was not provided to me, and the information I received from the medical section was that he did not have approved FMLA.

Okay, well, that's so you I mean you understand that you're giving testimony under oath here today, right?

Yes, and you went through several documents with my colleague before, right?

Yes, okay, and as far as I understand, one of those documents was a uh the referral of charges.

Uh do you recall that?

Um referral of charges.

Is that you're talking about the spec the specification sheet or the cover?

I will follow your uh terminology there.

The purpose of this form as I understood it was to number.

I don't know yet to convey to Mr.

Uh Benitez that there was charges being filed against him.

Do you recall that?

And sorry, did now I have it in front of me.

This is B11.

Can you refer to that document, please?

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

B is a boy.

B is in boy.

Okay.

And as I understood your testimony earlier, you didn't sign that document, right?

That's signed by uh Lieutenant Looney there or Captain Looney.

Yes.

Okay.

And that, but you drafted this document.

Did I also understand that correctly?

I draft the narrative personal narrative at the bottom.

And so when they say small narrative at the bottom, I mean it's to be fair to the narrative, it's three paragraphs, right?

Sure.

And it's under the section specification core value 1.0.

Yes.

We on the same area?

Okay.

And that's those three paragraphs, that's the sum total of what you wrote.

Yes.

Okay.

And so I'm gonna point your attention to the first paragraph, last uh clause of that.

Do you see that there?

The first paragraph, I'm sorry.

Sure.

It's the first paragraph starts between November 11th, 2023 and December 14th, 2023.

Do you see that there?

Yes.

Okay, and then I'll just read the last clause says officer Benitez did not submit an application for a family medical leave of absence FMLA.

You saw that there, right?

Correct.

Okay, and so you wrote that as part of your duties as a police officer, right?

Yes.

Okay, and so that would also have to be true, just under that.

Uh just uh I understand you're under oath, but uh when you're wrote this document, you also had to tell the truth, isn't that also correct?

Yes, okay.

So what and I also understood from your previous answer that you didn't, in fact, know whether or not he had submitted an application, but you were told by Ms.

D.

Taylor that he was not eligible.

Did I understand that right?

From what I understand from Misty Taylor is that he did not have approved FMLA.

Okay, and you'll agree with me that not having approved FMLA is not the same thing as did not submit an application, won't you?

Sure.

Okay, and you agree that you chose these words, did not submit an application, right?

Yes, and you gave that to your uh cap captain, right?

Yes, and the captain signed it, right?

Yes, okay, and you agree with me that all these things have to be true and correct on here, don't you?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

So what did you understand about the let's just talk here on May 16th of 2025?

What did you understand about the FMLA situation?

Well, let's back that up a second.

You talked with Mr.

Benitez uh prior to uh May 16th, 2025, right?

Yes.

Okay, and that was the first time you talked with him?

Yes.

Okay.

And you were aware that he had a traumatic brain injury, correct?

No, I was not aware of that.

Oh, okay.

Were you aware that he was in any accident at all?

I was aware that he was involved in a squad accident, yes.

How did you become aware of that?

Um, I believe through this investigation, I learned about his accident.

And who told you about it?

Um, well, I learned through the emails that he had an old duty injury regarding an accident.

Okay, and I'm sure that as part of your investigation, you looked up what that old duty injury is, right?

No, I did not.

Oh, why not?

His old duty injury didn't um have anything to do with him not reporting to work on November 14th, 2023.

Okay, and how can you tell the people of the city of Milwaukee that that's the case?

Well, when I received the initial the memo from Captain Teal, it wasn't regarding his squad accident that he was involved in, it was regarding the fact that he was supposed to be at work and he didn't report.

Okay.

So and I'll just just to quote again from the the sentence that you wrote that said that he was notified that he was no longer permitted to utilize the old duty injury ODI pay.

Do you see that in what you wrote?

Yes.

Okay, so you that factored at least in part of your decision, right?

Which decision?

Well, the fact that he had an ODI, that he was claiming that he had an ODI.

That factored into part of your decision or what you wrote in this narrative, didn't it?

Correct.

Okay, but you didn't fake find take any steps to find out what exactly the ODI was, right?

No.

Okay, why not?

I don't work for the medical section.

Um, that's was a medical issue that he was reporting.

Um, I investigated his allegation that he was absent without leave.

Okay, and he told you so, and we're clear that you don't you're not in charge of FMLA, right?

Correct.

Okay, you're not in charge of sick leave, right?

Right, okay.

You don't you can't determine whether somebody's been lawfully ordered to uh appeared at work, right?

Well, I I would disagree.

Um for instance, for example, this investigation, several sergeants who have the authority to order a member into work documented on official department memorandums that they spoke with him and told him to report to work.

So to me, that is a lawful order.

Got it.

Okay.

Now, what duty was Mr Um Benitez on at this time?

What do you mean?

Well, you understand that there's different duties, right?

I guess I'd I'd like to clarify it on the problem.

You would you understand what light duty is?

Yes.

Was he on light duty at this time?

Yes.

Okay, how do you know that?

Um based on lineups that he was assigned limited duty status, the memorandums that were filed by a sergeant stated that one of the days that he didn't report.

Um, and he said that he couldn't, it was he was assigned as a limited duty officer, and that was his status um based on what Sergeant Taylor said in her email that he was uh to work full time in a limited duty capacity.

Okay, and what does that mean limited duty capacity?

Um typically members that are on limited duty um don't wear uniforms, they don't respond to calls on the street, they typically work in an office, handle the clerical duties in the office, um, answer phones, things like that.

Okay, and you talk to uh Mr.

Benitez about FMLA, right?

Yes, okay, and what did he say in response?

Um he stated that he applied for it, and again, and I I don't want this to be mistaken because I had two investigations with him, and I his interviews were right back to back, but um, I believe he said that he applied for it.

Um, but miss he was denied and he believed that Sergeant Taylor was denying him, not that uh excuse me, that his paperwork was incorrect.

Okay, so did you think he was lying at that time?

I didn't think he was lying or telling the truth.

That was his response.

Okay, well, what steps did you take to investigate whether his response was true and accurate?

Um, I emailed Sergeant Taylor and asked if he had any approved FMLA, and she stated no, he only had the for his own condition.

Great.

When did you ask Misty Taylor whether or not uh when um Mr.

Benitez had applied for FMLA?

Um if I can look in the email again.

I had two investigations with Officer Benitez.

I'm asking.

So I just want to make sure um if it was in this email or if it's in the second case that she told me that he only had FMLA during a block, I think in December, um, for the birth of his child.

I don't I'm I'm concerned that we're not communicating clearly.

I'm asking you about whether his app applying for FMLA, and your answers seem to indicate that you're you're responding on whether he was approved for FMLA.

Can we stick to the question about whether and the responses about whether he applied for FMLA?

I don't know that, and I would not be given that information.

That's privy to medical section.

Okay.

So you didn't you were clear that you not only did you not know on March 16th, 2025, whether or not he uh applied for FMLA, you're telling the people of the city of Milwaukee that you couldn't know because that would be inappropriate.

Oh, true.

I would not know if he applied for FMLA correct.

I would only know if it was approved.

Okay, so I mean it's fair to say that when you put down and had your your uh double superior officer sign your name.

And you I'm sorry, you know you knew after May 16th, 2025, uh that Captain Looney signed this document, right?

Yes, okay.

And you understand that it's it now it's essential for captains to sign truthful documents, also true?

Yes, okay.

So and and you've told us that you had no idea and you were not capable of knowing whether or not he submitted an application for uh family medical leave.

Also true?

Yes, okay.

So do you wish to correct this statement now that's been signed uh here on May 16th by Captain Looney saying officer Benitas did not submit an application for family medical leave of absence?

I guess it they could have written wrote that he was not approved for FMLA.

Okay, and you'll agree with me that that's an important distinction, won't you?

I mean, it could be, but I don't think it changes the fact that he did not have approved leave to be off, whether he applied for FMLA.

I mean, he could apply a hundred times.

It was if it was never approved, you don't have the authorization to take off a work for FMLA reasons.

And you know that because Misty Taylor told you, right?

I know what that uh, well, what you just told us about the FMLA law uh with regard to a wall uh work rule violation.

You know that because Misty Taylor told you, right?

I what I know because of what Sergeant Taylor told me, excuse me, is that he did not have an approved application for FMLA.

Okay, I got it.

So I mean, we can now be clear that this charging document is it contains at least some false information, and that the charge that we're sitting here today is based on at least some false information badgering the witness, please.

Right?

It's cross or we're gonna answer.

I would disagree in indicating that it's a false document.

I understand that there's maybe some disagreement between him submitting an application and him being approved for application, but as far as the SOP is concerned, he did not have approved leave to be off of work.

So I understand that you the way you're reading it, that it may sound like it's false.

I don't agree with that, but I mean we can agree to disagree.

Well, you you okay.

We don't we can't do that, I'm afraid, because we're clear that uh you don't know, and you still don't know whether or not he applied for uh disability because you told us it would be inappropriate for you to know, right?

I'm gonna object that's not the testimony that was given by Sergeant Dietrich.

It's mischaracterizing testimony.

Well, then she can answer yes or no.

But here's the question is ask her yes or no questions.

It's gonna be a lot easier.

Whether she knew he had applied for that's one question, whether she knew that it was he had it was proof for it, it's another question.

You knew that he you did you didn't know one way or the other whether or not he had applied for uh FMLA on May 16, 2025.

True.

I would actually say if he was not approved for FMLA, then that would mean he would have had to submit an application that was denied.

Okay, now I understand.

So we can say, in fact, you knew this statement was not true on May 16, 2025.

Also, correct?

What statement?

The statement that you put in this document, Officer Benitez did not submit an application for family medical leave of absence.

You knew that was false on May 16, 2025 when you wrote that, right?

I don't agree with that.

Well, you okay, and maybe I misunderstood you, but I thought you said that because you understood from Misty Taylor that he had a uh he was denied FMLA, that therefore you also knew that he applied for FMLA.

Did I misunderstand that?

Yes, you did.

I I didn't say Sergeant Taylor told me he was denied.

I am making that um characterization based on the fact that you have to apply for something to be denied, and um he was not approved, and so to me, that means that he may have submitted an application and that the application for whatever reason, um, based off the emails, there was some issues with the applications and um whether Sergeant Taylor and Officer Benitez knew what the issues were.

I don't know what they were, but there were some issues with the application.

So that to me tells me that he did submit an application, however, it was not approved.

Okay, so now with that all in mind, we can agree that the document that you had your captain sign was at least partially false.

Well, no, I I would say that it's true because based off of the memory the email that Sergeant Taylor said is that you submitted paperwork that was incorrect and that needs to be corrected to me.

That tells me that he submitted it.

So I suppose, yes, we just I just talked myself through that.

So I if you want if you'd like to say that it's false, then okay, yes, it's false.

Okay, I appreciate that.

Um the when I also just for the record to be clear, we're talking you're talking about emails.

This is otherwise known as exhibit B6, and these are emails that you received from Misty Taylor on uh March 5th of 2025 with FYI and then four dots or three dots, right?

Yes, okay.

Why did she send you that to you at that time?

If you know, um, I believe I called her and asked her if she had the email communication between um her and Officer Benitez, and then she forwarded it to me.

Okay, so this is by your request.

Yes, okay.

So I'm gonna go to the I don't even know how many pages it's because it's double-sided one, two, three, four, five, and just to be helpful, it says triple quadruple zero twenty-six at the bottom.

Do you see that there?

And I'm I'm focused on in the middle of oh, I'm sorry, B6.

And I'm sorry, which page?

No problem at all.

So B6, and I just to again zero two six at the bottom.

Okay.

Okay, so there is an email, and you read this at in in March.

Is that true?

Yes.

Okay, and it says I received your updated PP 18 yesterday.

The PP 18 that you submitted does not have a date of the examination listed.

Do you see that there?

Yes.

Okay.

It also says this PP 18 is not complete, nor are your doctors' various recommendations clear.

Do you see that there?

Yes.

Okay, and that's in Misty Taylor's opinion, as far as you understand that the recommendations are not clear, right?

Yes.

Okay.

And then it said also the city's doctor stated that you are capable of working full-time light duty.

Do you see that there?

Yes.

Okay.

Now did Mr.

Uh Benitez raise the issue of uh that he had asked for an accommodation at any time.

Um, not that I recall.

Did he tell you that he had his doctor had said recommended that he worked three full days?

Yes, I believe there were um there actually was uh when he was told when he reported back to work, he provided, or I don't remember if it was he reported back to work, but he did at some point provide his sergeants at District One a copy of a doctor's note and an updated PP18.

Okay, and as part of your investigation, did you ever find out whether or not the department had engaged in any kind of process with regard to his request for the three days?

No, from what I understand through the email that that was not valid.

Okay, and why why what what in the email told you that his request for an accommodation wasn't valid?

Well, it wasn't with his request for accommodation, it was a request for him to only work three to four days a week and that he would be off for the month that he was AWOL that his doctor said that he would be off.

And why do you think that that's not or the request to work three days out of five is not a request for an accommodation?

I mean, I suppose it could be okay, and when and you never investigated as uh based on that answer, we can assume that you didn't investigate his whether his request were uh for to work three days wasn't a request for an accommodation, right?

Okay, and so you wouldn't based on that, you wouldn't know if he was if the Americans with Disabilities Act applied to Mr.

Benitez at this time because you didn't investigate, right?

No, I I didn't wouldn't have been investigated.

Okay, so you wouldn't and and if uh if a request for an accommodation would uh allow Mr.

Benitez to lawfully be out of work, you wouldn't just assuming that that's true, you wouldn't have any idea of whether or not he would there was a lawful order for him to return to work, would you?

Can you repeat that?

No, I'll ask it a slightly different way.

So because you didn't investigate whether there was any accommod attempt to accommodate Mr.

Benitez, you don't know whether or not he refused to go back to work uh in the face of a lawful order, true?

What I understand is that the paperwork that he submitted was not valid, and that he should work, he would come back to work in a light duty status, which he was already accommodated for.

I understand that.

What I'm focused again on is his request for three days and his uh the response and your investigation of the response by the department.

As far as I understood from your previous testimony, you said that there you took no steps to investigate whether there was any response from the department at all.

Correct, right?

Okay, so with that in mind, you couldn't know whether or not there was a lawful order or if he was under ADA accommodations or anything else, right?

Sure.

Okay, I don't have any more questions for you.

Thank you.

All right, redirect.

Sergeant Diedrick, were you tasked with investigating Misty Taylor and whether or not uh she performed her job as the medical section officer appropriately?

No.

What were you tasked with again?

I was investigating whether um the fact that Officer Benitez did not report to work um roughly 18 days um between November 11th and December 15th.

Okay, and through your investigation, you allowed Officer Benitez how many attempts to provide you with documentation that would substantiate his need to be gone, at least two.

And did he provide you with any documentation?

No.

Did Misty Taylor, did Sergeant Taylor provide you with documentation that substance that identified to you that Mr.

Benitez knew he did not have an approved FMLA leave?

Yes.

Did Sergeant Taylor provide you with documentation that established to you that Mr.

Benitez knew that he had no paid time off remaining?

Yes.

Did Misty Taylor and Sergeant Taylor at the medical section identify to Mr.

Benitez that if he did not appear to work, he would be in violation of SOP 010115 absent without leave?

Yes, no further questions.

I do have a brief redirect here.

Oh if all of what you just said was true, why on the narrative section that you wrote, did you put that he not put what you just said and instead put he didn't file for uh FMLF?

Can you explain that?

What do you mean?

Where where are you referring to that it wasn't written?

Well, you just went through all these questions with my colleague about all of these things that my my client supposedly did wrong, and I'm asking you why instead of putting all of those things into this charge narrative that you wrote and allowed your uh supervisor to sign, why did you instead put Officer Benita's did not submit an application for a family medical leave act?

I believe those are words directly from our SOP that were put inside there.

Exactly.

Because it says, and just to be clear, it says department members who have exhausted their sick and injury benefits and who are medically incapable of returning to duty shall as soon as possible apply for medical leave of absence, right?

Yes.

Okay.

And when did you learn that Mr.

Benitez was medically incapable of returning to duty?

I believe that he that he was medically incapable.

Right.

From what I understand, based on the the emails, he was capable of returning to work based off of the independent medical examiner's review of his on duty injury.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Any questions or questions?

No questions.

All right.

Very fine.

We step down.

Thank you.

She may not step down.

She's uh she's also the investigating sergeant for KC.

All right.

Well, you continue to remain under oath.

I just want you to know that.

So you may begin your next round with her.

Are we going to have exhibits?

They are coming.

Yes, we're going to.

Why don't we wait until Dad catches?

All right.

We could do that.

She's something.

Now we're doing the whole story.

Sixty percent of the time.

Yes.

I shouldn't be here.

I'd like to get this thing done.

I think we haven't third day already.

Yes.

Yeah, that's right.

These lieutenants are just confusing all the time.

I believe we are good to go.

We're all set.

I believe so.

Okay.

Okay if your client's not here.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I didn't see that.

I might go lose.

Sorry, it's chair, right?

My apologies.

Make sure you give you your proper title.

Do you prefer chair or chairwoman?

You prefer chair or chairwoman.

Everyone calls me chair.

Yeah.

I don't know.

It's okay with me.

All right.

Anyway, quickly through it.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Sorry about that.

Understandable.

Thanks for very quiet.

All right, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you here in examiner.

Quick KC.

I'm sorry.

K C direct.

Right.

Sergeant Drick, again, um, you're still under oath, and uh just wanted to go ahead and talk about the second case that you were assigned.

Uh can you briefly refresh the commissioner's memory as to when you were assigned this particular investigation?

I wasn't uh assigned this investigation December sixth of twenty twenty-four.

Okay.

And uh what were you tasked with um investigating on December sixth, two thousand twenty-four?

I was investigating an allegation that um Officer Benitez contacted his supervisor at District One and informed him that he had approved FMLA and that he would not be um coming into work um on January second and January third, twenty twenty four.

Um, they later learned through the medical section that Officer Benidez did not actually have approved FMLA and that they believed that he was um lying.

Um you identify to the commissioners again with the background and mind um of your uh previous testimony regarding um investigating AWOL cases.

Can you identify for the commissioners uh what you did when you received this allegation?

I reviewed the memorandum that came from his um district captain, and I reviewed the subsequent memorandums that came from the supervisors that he spoke to regarding his um claim that he had approved FMLA, and I contacted the medical section to verify if he had approved FMLA for that time.

Okay, and and just to be clear, these investigations were being conducted simultaneously.

Yes.

And when I say these investigations, I'm referring to the investigation that you completed with respect to case B and with case C.

Yes.

Okay.

Do you know why you were assigned both cases B and C I believe because I was already investigating the one allegation, and this um second allegation that came in was so close to the first ones that it made more sense to just have one person handle it.

Okay.

So I want to turn your attention to your um initiation memo, which is uh document exhibit C three.

B as a dog.

C is in cat.

Yes.

All right.

Um this investigation memo identifies how many alleged how many per how many uh potential violations.

Um it looks like one, two, three, two.

Two violations.

And those would be for um SOP 010115 and guided referencing guiding principle 311.

Yes.

Okay.

So I believe you indicated uh if if we're gonna break this down, the uh SOP that we just talked about of 10115 is relates to um Mr.

Benita's uh allegedly not going to work on days where he had no pay time off and was not approved for FMLA.

Correct.

And then the 311 charge refers to the truthfulness comment, correct?

Okay.

So after you reviewed, let's go ahead and take a look now at exhibit C5 for me, please.

Okay.

Exhibit C5 is uh what exactly?

This um was a memorandum that again, Captain Teal from District 1 sent to the Internal Affairs Division requesting that an internal be initiated against Officer Benitez.

He indicated that on January 2nd, 2024, umfficer Benitez called and spoke with Lieutenant Borquist and said that he had approved FMLA.

He was notified from the medical section that it was going to be approved in that that day and that he was not coming into work.

Um Lieutenant Borquist, uh I'm sorry, and then on January 3rd, um he did not come to work again, and they he said he had approved medical um FMLA and that it was going to be sent to the districts.

Captain Teal said that in his memo that he believed that Officer Benitez had until January 10th to get the paperwork in.

So he held off initiating the investigation until the paperwork was submitted.

Um he documented that he later learned from the medical section that his FMLA was not actually approved and that he returned to work on January 4th.

Okay.

So uh it appears to me that uh you missed a couple of days of work with uh no paid time correct.

Okay.

In January 2024?

Yes.

Okay, excellent.

Um after you reviewed that particular memo from Captain Teal, I guess we're just I'm just want to walk you through your investigation to determine what you uh learned during that time period.

Um exhibit C6, C as in Cat 6, contains series of emails from uh Mr.

Benitez and the medical section.

Did you review these series of emails?

Yes.

Okay, and who provided you these particular series of emails?

This was included in the paperwork that I received when I was given the case file.

So I believe it probably it was by Captain Teal.

Okay.

Um and indeed Mr.

Teal or Captain Teal's uh name is at the top of that, indicating he print off these emails?

Yes, okay.

Um so can you identify for me?

Uh on exhibit C6.

I'm gonna ask you to look to page 181, 181, which is like a second two pages there.

Yes.

You let me know when you're there.

I am okay.

Can you identify for me what this document is?

This is medical certification requirement.

Um this document is provided to members who um utilize a high amount of sick time, and when they're placed on what we call medical substantiation, is that any time this member calls in sick, they have to provide an excuse.

Okay.

Um and this particular uh this particular memorandum identified what to you that Officer Benitez was on medical substantiation effective March 5th of 2023.

Okay.

Um and again, your understanding of what meta being on medical substantiation is that an officer needs to produce medical documentation if he or she will be out for a period of time?

Correct.

All right, whether or not they use FMLA.

Correct.

Okay.

Um and can you identify for me?

Did Mr.

Benitas sign this document?

Um no, it says refused.

Okay.

Who uh put Mr.

Benita's on medical substantiation?

I believe the captain authorizes it.

Um, but at for this um the commanding officer was uh Lieutenant Borkwist.

Um he may have been the acting captain at the time, I'm not sure, but um it's it's put on by a supervisor.

Okay.

Um the page prior on page 180 right there.

Um, does that document go hand in hand with this uh medical certification requirement?

Yes.

And what does this particular document on exhibit C6 page 180 mean to you?

Um this is just a checklist of things that the supervisor goes over with the member to explain to them what medical substantiation means and the type of things that they need to provide.

Okay.

Um and based upon the um handwritten uh demarcations on page 180, what do you understand this uh to be?

Um what I understand it to mean is that Sergeant Jeffrey Potsky went over the medical certification requirements with Officer Benita's on looks like March 12th, 2023.

Okay, back to the uh first block of emails, um, and that's gonna be from page in exhibit C6.

It's gonna be pages 167 to 172, and obviously, as emails go in printed off form, they go back to front.

Can you identify for me why you reviewed this particular email chain from Mr.

Taylor at the medical section to Mr.

Benitas because this it Sergeant Taylor documented a conversation that she had with Officer Benitez about his applying for um FMLA and that she explained to him that the paperwork that he submitted was not correct and um that he needed to be reporting to work, and if he did not report to work, he would be considered absent without leave.

In this particular email chain, did Mr.

Taylor did Sergeant Taylor identify a conversation with Mr.

Benitez wherein uh Mr.

Benitez withdrew a particular block of time for FMLA?

Yes, okay.

Um does that particular second or that particular block of time did that encompass the January 2nd and January 3rd, 2024 dates?

Correct.

Okay.

So how did you what did you understand that to mean?

Um my understanding was that he did not have approved FMLA and that he did not have any available sick time to utilize, so it appeared that he was AWOL.

Did you also understand that Mr.

Benitez withdrew his request for FMLA for February January 2nd and 3rd of 2024?

Yes, and I believe it said that he was gonna maybe reapply at a later date.

Okay, to the best of your knowledge, did he?

I don't know.

I've I don't know.

Okay, thank you.

Um after you reviewed the um exhibits in C6, the documentation that's in C6.

Um, did you review any other documentation with respect to your investigation into whether Mr.

Benitas was uh violated SOP 11015 uh in January 3rd and 4th, 2024?

Yes, I also I again looked at the um City of Milwaukee Comptroller report um to to determine how much sick time Officer Benitez had available to utilize for January 2nd and 3rd, and then I also looked at um our city time payroll um sheet, which indicated that um he was unpaid for the two days um January 2nd and January 3rd.

Sure, let's go ahead and um walk through or exhibit number exhibit C7.

Thank you.

I'd like to go ahead and walk you through exhibit C7.

Um as we did with the previous um case in case B as in boy.

Um Mr.

Benitez's name is whole punch through, but it looks like he is the fourth member down on in the fourth row down on the right left hand side column there.

Is that is that how you read this document?

Yes.

Okay.

Can you identify for me again what this means to you?

Um so according to this document, um Officer Benitez only had 3.7 hours accrued of sick time, and he had, I believe, four hours of um comp time available.

Okay.

And again, I I think we might be taking this for granted.

How long is a traditional shift when an individual's on light duty?

Eight hours.

Okay.

Um and so that is uh insufficient block of time to cover the eight hours.

Yes, okay.

I want to turn you to the second page in exhibit C seven.

It's Bates labeled page 185.

Okay.

Is what is this particular document?

Um, this is it's called a time card.

It's in our scheduling tab of our payroll system, and this just gives um his biweekly sheet to indicate what hours he worked um on each particular day and how he was paid for those hours.

Okay.

And this particular one is for pay period one of the year 2024.

Yes.

Which covers the end of December 2023 through the beginning through the first week thereof of January 24?

Yes.

Okay.

Did you handwrite 1224 and 1231 on this document?

I did just so that the document doesn't provide the dates on there, just so that I was could keep track of which days were what.

Okay, thank you.

Um can you identify for me what this document reflects?

This document reflects that on January 2nd and January 3rd.

Um, Officer Benitez was unpaid for um 16 hours.

Is that urn code UPT?

Correct.

Okay.

And then that would be in that second week or the second week time period on on the Tuesday and Wednesday.

Yes.

Okay, which you know to be January 2nd and 3rd of 2024.

Yes, that's why I put December 31st, so we could figure out that was the week.

Okay, days of that week.

Excellent.

Um the next page in exhibit C7.

That's Bates labeled page 186.

Can you tell me what this document is?

This is also another copy of a time card.

However, this was for um the date of January 31st, 2024, I believe that day um officer Benitez did report to work.

However, he left about 20 to 30 minutes into his shift.

And he was he utilized 7.5 hours of sick time on that day.

Okay.

Now that wasn't a part of the original allegations that office that Captain Teal put forth to the um IA department, was it?

No, that memo, I believe was included um after the initiation memo.

Okay.

Um just so that way the commissioners are clear if during the course of your investigation additional charges are identified or just to additional potential allegations are identified.

What do you do with them?

They're investigated.

Okay.

Is this one of those instances where an additional charge, additional allegation um came to light during the investigation?

Yes, I believe one of the supervisors, I don't recall which one I'd have to look through the memos, but one of the supervisors documented at a memo that he um left early and then when he returned to work, he was to provide a um medical excuse because he was on medical substantiation and he did not provide that excuse.

And so that's was added on as um an allegation.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, um, can we turn to exhibit C we'll start with exhibit C9 and then I'll turn to exhibit C eight?

Okay.

So exhibit C9 is a three-page um document uh for I believe we call this the lineup.

Yes.

Okay.

Can you identify for me uh what you did with this particular document?

I reviewed this document.

Um this is again the schedule of all the officers assigned to District 1 early shift and what their assignments were for that day.

And on January 2nd, 2024, um Officer Benitez was carried as UPT unpaid time for eight hours, as well as January 3rd, 2024, he was also carried um unpaid time, and then on January 31st, 2024, he was carried as sick for 7.5 hours, which is also reflected on that bi-weekly timesheet.

Okay.

And you understand the code for 043 to be sick time?

Yes.

Okay.

How do you know that?

Um I, as a supervisor, I um have conducted payroll previously.

Um I've had members report calls in to me sick, and I just know that that's the code for 043.

Okay, and that's citywide.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um turning to uh exhibit C eight for me now, please.

Exhibit C cat 8.

Okay.

Can you identify for me what these series of memoranda are?

So these memos document um the conversations that they uh this lieutenant and the sergeants had with um officer Benitez regarding um not coming to work on January 2nd and January 3rd.

There's also a memorandum in there um from Sergeant Potsky documenting um his conversation with Officer Benitez regarding um the medical certification.

Um there's another memo in here um from Sergeant Potsky extending um typically medical certification, I believe is like six, usually six months, I believe.

Um, and that because they were so concerned with um officer Benitez's sick call in time, they extended it, and then that was documented on a memo.

And then the um also the memo from Sergeant Simonson stating that Officer Benitez did not provide a um medical excuse for when he went home sick on January 31st, 2024.

Okay, let's go ahead.

Wait a minute.

My I have a glitch here, so I've got to shut down and restart it.

Sorry.

Okay, we're good.

Thank you.

Okay, um looking at the documentation and the latter part of uh exhibit C eight, and I'm gonna ask you to turn to pages uh Bates label 194 through 197.

Yes.

Can you identify for me what this page, what page 194 is?

That is what we call a sick report, and this is filled out when a member the top portion of it is filled out when a member calls in sick, and the bottom portion is filled out when they return to work.

And this is filled out when a member the top portion of it is filled out when a member calls in sick, and the bottom portion is filled out when they return to work.

And this document was filled was signed on December, I'm sorry, February 10th, 2024 by Officer Benitez.

Okay.

And is this uh in reference to his January 31st, 2024 uh time off?

Yes.

Okay.

Um does this particular forum and having it filled out like uh excuse him from providing medical substantiation for his timeout?

Junction Foundation overrule.

Um no, and and at the actually at the bottom of the report, um there's a a spot a spot for it for members who are on medical substantiation, and this the lieutenant marked that he did not provide medical substantiation um when this form was filled out.

Okay, and is that in section seven yes of the document wherein it indicates that uh medical certification not provided?

Correct.

And that particular box is checked off?

Yes.

Okay.

So what does that mean to you as the investigating sergeant?

To me, that means he was he was on medical substantiation and that when he returned from his sick time off and he completed this report, he did not provide an excuse for being off.

Okay.

Can we turn to the following three pages?

That's gonna be base label pages 195 to 197.

Um can you identify for me what this was?

Um these are the medical excuse.

Um, from what I understand based on the memorandum that um Sergeant Benitez, I'm sorry, Officer Benitez said that he had a medical excuse for the time that he was off and that he would submit it to his supervisor.

And from what I understand, this is the medical excuse that he did submit to his supervisor.

And again, that's for the January 31st, 2024 date?

Yes.

Okay.

Um and the and the document that's attached on page 160 196 to 197, does that reference the January 31st date at all?

No, it references a day on February 4th, 2024.

So upon reviewing this set of memorandum and supporting documentation that was um provided to you as a part of the initiation, what did you do next?

Um, I documented the information in my report, and then I contacted Officer Benitez to report to internal affairs so that I could serve him with the PI 21.

Did you do the PI21 for the second case, the C case cat?

Um on the same date that you did the PI21 for his uh GN December 2023 to January 2024 AWAL allegations?

Yes.

Okay.

Um what, if anything, did you do to prep for that PI21 interview?

Based off of the memorandums that I received and the emails that I received, I drafted um a list of questions to ask Officer Benitez.

Okay.

Um did you in fact ask him those questions?

Yes.

Okay.

What uh, if anything, did Mr.

Benitez indicate to you with respect to the allegations that he was not present at work on January 2nd and January 3rd, 2024?

I believe um Officer Benitez really didn't recall um why he was not at work.

He didn't recall um telling medical that he didn't need the FMLA anymore, and then he said that they were making it um too difficult for him to get the FMLA, so he just decided he wasn't going to do it.

What, if anything, did Mr.

Benitez indicate to you with respect to um the January 31st, 2024 date?

Um he initially said that he left because he thought he I believe he said he left because he thought he had maybe a headache or he might have been throwing up in the bathroom, and then he later said he it may have been because he had his append, he uh had his appendix removed, um, but he indicated that he did have an excuse for that and that he could get that um to me.

Okay.

Did you allow him the opportunity to supply you with documentation?

Yes.

Okay, do you recall approximately how many days Mr.

Benitez had to supply you with that documentation?

Well, this invest our interview was on March 19th, 2025, and this investigation, I believe was turned in April 9th of 2025, so roughly two and a half, three weeks.

Did Mr.

Benitez ever contact you after the PI 21 interview um with uh documentation?

No.

Did Mr.

Benitez ever contact you after his PI 21 interview with you requesting additional time to supply you with medical documentation?

No.

Did Mr.

Benitez contact you at any point in time after your March to March 19, 2025 PI21 interview at all?

No.

And just to be clear, he indicated that he had medical documentation that he could and would provide to you?

Yeah, I I believe he said he could it would take three to five days, if I recall that correctly, that he would get he could get whatever he needed from his doctor.

Okay.

Umsequent to the PI21 interview, um, what if anything did you do as it relates to this investigation?

Um after the investigation was reviewed by the lieutenant, um, I was instructed to draft the specifications um or the charges.

Okay.

Let's talk about the um your conversations that you had with then Lieutenant Len Lieutenant Sturma regarding this uh investigation.

Do you recall having conversations with Miss with Lieutenant then Lieutenant Sturma?

Um, I think vaguely.

Okay.

Um with respect to the charges that uh then Lieutenant Sturma sustained.

Do you know which charges she sustained?

Um it looks like she it was sustained for the I believe it's an AWAL investigation.

Um that he was sustained for not providing a medical excuse after returning to work.

Um the 106 um is was in relation to the January 31st.

Um disregard that the I'm sorry, the 106 was in relation to also the January 2nd and January 3rd dates after he did not report to work, and then I believe the 503 was related to his supervisors issuing him an order to report to work and he did not.

And the 503 specifically was that sustained or not sustained?

Um, I'm sorry, no, that was not sustained.

I'm sorry, let me let I'm sorry, let me be clear.

Was the 311 charge sustained or not sustained?

No, the 311 charge was not sustained.

And the 311 again was the um the allegation that Mr.

Benitez was lying to his superior officers wherein he said that he had FMLA?

Correct.

Okay.

Can you identify for me why that charge was not sustained?

I believe because he um did apply for it.

Um, however, there was some issue maybe with the paperwork.

Um, so I I think a reasonable person would believe that he may have believed he was on FMLA at the time and that it would have been retroactive once it was approved.

Okay.

So uh he wasn't uh so his charges again just to be clear that were presented to the chief, were with with respect to uh his A-WALL absence in January 20 January 2nd and 3rd?

Yes, his failure to provide medical substantiation on January 31st?

Yes, his failure to follow direct order as a direct lawful order as provided by his superior officers, yes.

Um also failing to appear to work on the 31st, as we already said, um, but not for the line.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Subsequent to um the conversation that you had with Lieutenant Sturma and then the substantiation or the sustained and non-sustained, did you happen to draft the charges for these particular um allegations?

I did.

Okay.

So let's go ahead and turn take a look at exhibit C11, C11 for me, please.

Let me know when you're there.

I am here.

Okay.

Um can you please turn to the specification for me related to uh charge 11045, which specifically indicates that the medical certification needs to be given to him?

That's gonna be in page 232.

Bates label page 232 specifications.

Yes.

Did you draft this specification?

Yes.

Okay, and why did you draft the specification?

Um, because the charge was sustained by the lieutenant and subsequent captain.

Okay.

And in the specific uh charge in uh the specific the specifications, I'm gonna turn you to that middle paragraph.

It indicates that during that PI21 interview, Officer Benita's stated he believed he provided a medical excuse.

And after reviewing the medical excuse for February 4th, Benita stated he would have to go back through his records to find the correct excuse.

Benita stated that he left work suffering from effects of his old duty injury and was not sure if he was being considered out sick or out with an old duty injury.

Did I read that correctly?

Yes.

Okay.

Um what did you understand Mr.

Benitez to um mean when he's referring back to his old duty injury?

Um he was involved in a squad accident, I believe, in um 2022.

Okay, based upon the additional the uh case B that you were simultaneously investigating.

Did you know if Officer Benitas in February in January 2024 had the ability to call in on the ODI or the on duty injury?

No, he did not.

Okay.

Turning to the second charge, and that's going to be with respect to violating uh guiding principle 105 specifically referencing uh SOP 1010115?

Yes, okay.

That's gonna be that what we call the AWAL charge.

Yes, all right.

Um at this particular time, uh, did Officer Benita's uh um have FMLA?

No, he did not have approved FMLA, and that's from your conversation with that's based off of the um email that Sergeant Taylor drafted.

All right, and then provided to you in your review, correct.

And officer and officer, then officer Benita's was presented with that uh document?

Yes, and it was confronted with that document during his PI21?

Yes, and I believe he was included on that email communication.

Did Officer Benitez or then Mr.

Benitez recognize that he had received that document?

He did.

Um I don't really recall if he I he didn't really recall a lot of things he said.

He kind of remembered the the email.

Okay.

Um to the best of your knowledge, uh this particular AWAL charge.

Um I'll skip that question, thank you.

Turning to the next um charge here, that's gonna be guiding principle 106.

Yes, and that one specifically is for failing to report to duty as time by designated by their supervisors.

Yes.

Did Officer Benita's indicate that uh he had a reason for not being present where he was ordered to be?

Did he provide a reason?

Correct during his PI21.

Um, I believe um he said that he was injured at work and that um he believed that his FMLA was gonna be approved and that um it would be retroactive.

Okay.

Um did he follow up with you on that?

No, okay.

And finally, as it relates to the guiding principle charge 503, meaning uh the members shall promptly obey any proper order, uh lawful order emanating from any officer of a higher rank.

Can you identify for me why this charge was substantiated?

Um on January 3rd, after they learned that after District 1 supervisors learned that Officer Benita's did not have approved FMLA.

Um, he was ordered into work by his supervisor, um, but he did not report anything with respect to this case um and this particular AWAL investigation that um scratch I is your investigation to the best of your knowledge that you conducted as it relates to this C case.

Um how does that compare to other investigations that you had for AWOL or other officers?

Um typically the other investigations I had where it uh members accused of not reporting to work when they should have, they usually provide some sort of documentation or have some reason, um provable reason as to why they weren't at work.

Okay, and did officer then officer Benita's have any documentation or prove to you that he should not have been at work on those days, January 3rd, January 4th, January 31st?

No, okay no further questions at this time, right?

Is everybody ready?

Okay, all right, and uh Sergeant, you're also ready.

I am okay.

So um let's you filed uh uh let me ask a different question.

Who is HRA Baker?

She's uh human resources assistant that works um alongside Sergeant Taylor.

Okay, who was uh in the hierarchy who's the hire?

Sergeant Taylor.

How do you know that?

Because she's a supervisor.

Okay.

Is there anybody else in the HR section that has a police officer rank that you know of?

Not that I know of.

Okay, she's the only one.

I I believe so.

I don't know.

Okay, I got it.

So um at some point, Officer Benita says that he talks with HRA um Baker, right?

Correct.

And what did Baker say that she said to him?

Um, I believe that she provided him with the documents um for him to apply to FM for FMLA, and that he said that she told him that that the FMLA would be apply uh approved that day, I believe on January 2nd.

Okay, and she's told you that, right?

No, I didn't speak to her.

Oh, why not?

I didn't feel like I needed to.

Well, you was documented in the the email string.

Okay, so you don't think that that would have been helpful to your investigation to know whether or not she had actually told him that fair?

No, he didn't have approved FMLA.

Okay, and so now I just I'm comparing exhibit B11.

You still have that in front of you.

Yes, B11.

Okay, and that's the one in which you falsely put in there that Officer Benitez did not submit an application for family medical leave of absence.

I'm just gonna go ahead and object to the question as being disregard disrespectful and bare minimum and this respect.

Miss Thank you.

Well, no, so you're not gonna give me looks and sit there and say sustained and without explaining what's the problem with that question.

Problem is that it wasn't sustained.

Problem is that the information that was provided was uh was was not correct.

They applied for it, but it hadn't been approved yet, right?

And it never was approved.

Uh okay, so that's that's maybe in contention here, but even based on what you just said, the statement that he did not file uh a request, did not submit an application for family medical leave of absence, is false, and based on what you just said, it's false.

Not necessarily so I can supply you with any application for anything I want.

If I know that it's not gonna be approved or applied with, all it is is it's another it's an excuse attempt.

So it's an excuse attempt without a substance at this stage of the game.

What's an excuse for not being at work without having any approval for it in advance or knowing that it would be approved in advance, and it was just an excuse time.

That's really all I've done.

And what's your basis for saying that?

Because it was never approved.

You don't have to cross exam me, my friend.

I'm just saying it was never approved.

Because it was never approved, then it wasn't submitted.

It wasn't well that well the question.

The two things can be the same.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

What's uh very clear is is that we're we're trying to conflate two things.

One is saying that he did not submit an application, and then you're now saying he may have submitted an application, but in your decision, you've decided that he was faking or some other thing like that.

That's still not saying that he didn't submit an application.

So there's no please, it was never approved.

Okay, but that's not the same thing, and we all know that.

Oh, it is it's substantially the same.

If I send in an application on X day, and by Y day it's supposed to be approved, and it's not approved, it's not approved.

I don't have to wait uh indefinitely for it to uh for for that approval scenario.

Uh it did not get approved, so that's simple, right?

But words have meaning and power, and when you say that something was not submitted, that's not the same thing as saying it wasn't approved.

So that's what the issue is.

So it's false to say that it wasn't submitted, it was submitted.

That's a false statement.

And you're I mean you're exposing bias here because it's very clear.

Please don't argue with me ever, my friend.

You understand that?

No, I don't understand that.

Understand?

I don't.

She submitted the information which said that it was it was submitted, but was never approved.

I agree.

That statement was made, and that's that's his scenario.

Right, and I my question was that's a false statement.

That was what I put in in the form of my question there.

So now we're all back to where we were, which is to submit an application is not the same thing as to have an application not be approved.

That's just simple sense.

That's what that means.

It's not an argument, that's just plain language.

It's an argument.

Move on.

Okay.

So I well, I need to be clear on what the ruling is for the record.

So it's the determined, it's the determination of the hearing examiner that to submit something and to not have something be approved of the same thing.

Is that what I'm to understand?

Within the time period allowed by by the process, that's true.

What does that mean?

Didn't get approved uh by the FMLA.

Well, how do you know that?

Because that's what she said.

May I interject?

I think you're on case C.

It was actually at case B that it was that that was her charge on uh 234, page 234 on C.

And it was I it was also that charge was uh uh also uh uh on the V on the V scenario where he had she had indicated that it was not approved.

Go ahead.

Right, but so we're still at the point where to apply to submit an application is not the same thing as to have an application denied, and that's the problem here because what we're telling the people of the city of Milwaukee is as far as this commission is concerned that it those are the same things, and that doesn't make any sense.

So that's why we're spending time on this, I think.

Enough, you move on.

I've already ruled that it did not get approved, and that's the way it is.

Okay.

Well, the problem with that is that we've had evidence, testimony from this witness saying that it was false, and that we went over this quite extensively, and we she did admit that Officer Benitas did not submit an application for a family medical leave absence.

We went over that, she admitted that.

So for you to now find the opposite is not only improper, it's without any actual evidence to support that.

You're the one who's found it to be improper.

I am not finding it to be improper.

There's a process involved with filing an application for FMLA, and then there's an approval of FMLA.

The FMLA was never approved.

That's that's simple.

Move on.

Okay.

Uh Sergeant, I'm sorry, I forgot your last name.

D trick Didra, you you agree with me as you have already, that to uh submit something and to have it be approved are not the same thing, right?

Okay, I object to asked and answered already.

Sustained.

Okay, so we're clear at least on that that there is a difference here, and we're clear.

Let me ask you this at least.

On May 16th, 2025, you put this statement in there uh that some think are true that Officer Benidez did not submit an application for family medical leave of absence.

You put that in there because your supervisor told you to put that in there, didn't you?

What are we referring to?

Exhibit B 11.

The state and we want we spent quite a good deal of time on this.

Are you are you asking me if I drafted the specifications that way because I was told to?

Yes.

No, I drafted those specifications based off of my investigation.

I got it.

Okay.

So now I'm back in C11.

And in C11, there's multiple documents that all refer to him filing uh medical information, right?

The filing request for medical leave, right?

Um, let me get to it.

You said C11.

Can I have a page number, please?

C11.

That's the we haven't.

I haven't identified any page yet, just C11.

So anywhere in that document, is there anywhere that refers to him applying for FMLA?

Which document?

C11.

And all of them you want me to tell you if he applied for FMLA in any of the three charges, yeah.

That's what I want.

You got it.

Yes, in the absence um one zero one zero one one five B specification, it does say that he did not have FMLA authorization and he did not report to work.

Okay, I'm gonna uh point you to page 234.

There's a date of May 16th, that's a charge there, and I believe that you wrote the narrative for that.

Is that true?

Yes, okay.

And the middle paragraph it says during the PI 21 interview, Officer Benita stated he applied for FMLA.

However, there was an issue with the paperwork.

Do you see that there?

Yes.

Officer Benita stated that he believed once the paperwork was corrected, it would be retroactive and would cover the days he was absent.

Did you see that there?

Yes.

Okay.

What steps did you take to uh determine whether or not that uh there would be any retroactivity?

I believe I emailed um Sergeant Taylor.

Again, I don't want to be um accused of making a false statement um because I obviously had two investigations, but I I believe Sergeant Taylor stated that he did not have um FMLA from I believe he applied from January 1st to January 11th, and she stated that he did not have um FMLA for that time.

Got it, okay.

So you don't have any idea whether or not the FMLA would be retroactively applied.

Is that fair?

That's correct.

And I and Officer Benitez did not provide that information either.

Well, okay, let's talk about what Officer Benita's um provided.

Did you ever get a copy of the FMLA paperwork that he did uh uh submit, even though you said he didn't?

No, I would have only gotten approved FMLA paperwork if he would have been approved for the time frame that he was considered AWAL.

Okay, so wouldn't that have been uh helpful to your investigation to get the documents that he's submitted?

Yes, if he was approved for FMLA during that time, it would have been helpful to have that information because then he wouldn't have been considered a wall.

Well, one of these charges is accusing him of lying, right?

No.

Well, one of them says that he filed uh filled out paperwork incorrectly.

Did I misunderstand that?

Yes, none of these charges are accusing him of a 311 charge is is a uh code of conduct violation that we charge a member with um untruthfulness, and he did not get charged with that.

Okay, so to be clear on C11, these are the only one, these are the only the charges that were substantiated.

Is that correct?

And these were the charges that were presented to the chief.

Got it.

Okay, and you'll agree with me that the charges that were presented to the chief both say that he didn't apply for FMLA and that he did apply for FMLA, right?

No, um, it says that he was not approved for FMLA and that he did not have FMLA authorization.

What steps did you take to determine whether or not Misty Taylor had any authorization to determine whether an FMLA paperwork was filled out correctly?

I didn't.

I'm not Misty Taylor's supervisor.

Okay.

What uh steps did you take to determine whether or not Mr.

Taylor has any role with respect to FMLA whatsoever?

I did not.

I was not investigating Sergeant Taylor or FMLA.

I was investigating whether Officer Benita was considered a wall.

I appreciate that.

Now, one of the questions that my colleague asked you was that if you find uh additional issues in your investigation, that you also investigate those additional issues, true?

Correct.

Okay.

And as far as I understand, uh, and this is on page 236.

So if you can join me there, these are one of the charges that you drafted, right?

And you were familiar with everything you drafted, right?

Yes.

Okay.

So it says this is again the middle paragraph during a PI 21 interview.

Officer Benita stated he applied for FMLA.

However, there was a problem with the medical certification paperwork.

Do you see that there?

Yes.

Then it goes on to say Officer Benita's stated that he believed once the forms were corrected, the FMLA would be retroactive.

Officer Benita stated he could not recall if the FMLA was ever approved.

However, he reported to work on January 4th, 2024 because he was, quote, being harassed by the medical section and felt he needed to work injured or not.

Do you see that there?

Yes.

Okay.

And you'll agree with me that harassing another member is a violation of the core policies or core values of the department, right?

Sure.

Okay.

And so what steps did you take to investigate Officer Benita's allegations that Taylor was harassing him?

Being ordered into work is not harassment.

Uh okay.

Can you answer my question though?

His allegation that he was being harassed by the medical section to report to work is not a violation.

Okay, so you just decided that that was you did you ask him what he meant by being harassed?

Um, I don't believe so, and I don't believe he clarified either.

Okay, but you had the you were the investigator, right?

So it was your job to ask the questions, right?

Yes.

Okay, and it wasn't his job to provide you with more information, you but you chose not to ask those additional questions.

Also true?

Yes.

Okay.

So you don't really know whether what Officer Benita meant by when he alleged that he was being harassed by uh Sergeant Taylor.

True?

True.

Okay.

Now, what is supposed to happen if a member alleges harassment by another member, as far as you understand it?

Um, they could make a complaint.

Okay.

And uh him telling you that he was being harassed, is that something other than making a complaint?

I didn't take it as him making a complaint because he also claimed that the sergeants were harassing him when they were ordering him into work when they came to his house um for the the B case.

So let's say you took it as a complaint.

What would the policy require you to do?

Um he would file a memorandum dictating what he claims is harassment, and then it would I would present it to the captain.

Okay.

Did you ask him to file that memorandum?

No.

Okay.

Anything else that could happen?

Is there did you have any uh independent ability to investigate his complaint on your own?

I would give that information to a lieutenant or a captain, and then then they would assign it to me.

You didn't do that here, did you?

No, I did not okay, because you chose not to.

Correct.

Okay.

Now, um, were you aware?

Well, you were aware that uh the department had sent Mr.

Benitez to an IME, right?

Yes, I don't know the details of it though.

Okay, how did you become aware of that?

I believe it was in an email from Sergeant Taylor.

Okay, did you obtain that information at all?

Which information?

The independent medical report.

No, okay, why not?

I wasn't investigating his squad accident or what occurred during his um independent medical examination.

I was investigating whether he was AWOL from work.

Got it.

So it wouldn't matter if he had was disabled, it wouldn't have mattered if he was medically unable to work, it wouldn't none of those things would have mattered.

The only thing that mattered as far as your investigation, or sorry, wouldn't even have mattered if he was on FMLA or of covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act because you were instructed just to go after the AWAL charges, right?

If he would have had approved FMLA because of those things, he would not have had an AWAL charge.

Well, can you were you asked to identify?

No, let's put it this way.

Did you ever see the FMLA application?

No, I was not investigating whether he had a valid medical condition or not.

That wasn't the scope of my investigation.

That's not what internal affairs.

Right, but you put in your report that it was his report was not approved, right?

That his FMLA was not approved, correct?

And you you don't you didn't see the report or the actual uh request for medical uh authorization, all you did was ask him for it, right?

Correct.

Okay, and you could have easily gone to um Misty Taylor and asked her for the her medical records, uh, but you didn't do that, right?

I don't believe they can provide those specific medical records.

I'm not sure, but typically when I do investigations that are revolving around FMLA, um, there are documents that are able to be provided to us, but it does not provide their medical diagnosis or who they saw as a doctor and things like that.

Great.

When you met with uh Mr.

Benitez, who else was in the room with you?

Um his union representative Danilo Cardinas and another sergeant uh Lyndon Evans.

Okay, sergeant Lyndon L Y N D O N Evans, and Mr.

Evans was working with you, yes, as a witness, yes.

Okay, so it's your investigation, but he's there as a management witness, true?

Correct.

Okay, got it.

So um I understood that you said that Mr.

Benitez left the interview at some point to go throw up in the bathroom.

Did I understand that right?

No, that's not correct.

Okay, what happened?

I think you're confusing that with his absence on January 31st.

That's when he said why he went home because he wasn't feeling well.

No, I understand.

Thanks for clearing that up.

What was his general health condition as you observed it on uh when you interviewed him?

I believe he was fine.

I I thought he said he just came from the the gym.

Okay, anything else?

No, he's he's I mean I didn't ask him any medical questions, but he he appeared fit.

Was it did he forget anything?

As far as what was he having problems remembering things, for example, sure.

He said he could not recall um specific incidents because it occurred, you know, a year and a half prior.

Or for any other reason, I don't recall him saying anything.

Did he ever divulge you that he had a traumatic brain injury?

I don't know if he ever said that to me.

Okay, could he have said that to you?

I mean, he may have.

Okay, would that have been important to your investigation?

Not necessarily.

Well, if somebody has a traumatic brain injury, might that prevent them from coming to work.

Sure, and I would believe that would have been documented if he had approved for FMLA.

But you didn't find you didn't look at that document, right?

Well, from my understanding, he was not approved, so there was no document.

Okay, let's just be clear for the record.

You're well aware that there was paperwork in forms that Mr.

Benitez gave to uh Miss Taylor, right?

Yes.

Okay, and you chose not to look at those documents, right?

I did not get any copies of any approved FMLA paperwork.

If his FMLA paperwork would have been approved, I would have had a copy of that.

I don't get a copy of his medical diagnoses and anything that he speaks with his doctor about.

Okay.

So the answer to my question specifically, you didn't ask Ms.

Taylor for the copy of any of the records that she had, the answer would be yes, right?

I did not ask her for those things.

Because you chose not to.

Yes.

Okay.

I got it.

And so therefore, you um do you know if the department has is in possession of any knowledge any medical records which uh demonstrate that Mr.

Benitez had a traumatic brain injury?

I don't know.

Okay, would that have been helpful to your investigation?

I don't believe so.

Why not?

Um, I wasn't investigating if he had a traumatic brain injury.

I was investigating whether he reported to why he did not report to work on January 2nd and January 3rd.

Great, and so people uh you'll agree with me then that a traumatic brain injury could not affect in any way whatsoever whether or not somebody would report to work, right?

I believe it could, and then um someone would apply for FMLA for that type of thing.

Okay, and you mentioned something else, uh some other kind of leave, I think, that somebody could have uh could take other than family medical leave, right?

Like intermittent family medical leave, sure.

That that was the I FMLA, right?

But there was also a medical, it was another kind of medical leave that police officers can take uh according to their union, right?

Like a medical leave of absence, right?

Yeah, yeah.

Did you suggest that at any time?

Did I suggest that at all you?

No, why not?

I wasn't his direct supervisor, I was investigating uh his AWAL allegations.

Okay, do you know if anybody else uh suggested that he take a medical leave of absence?

I don't know.

Okay, so it I mean it's fair to say that you were aware that he had a medical condition, true.

According to him, yes.

Okay, but that you took no steps to investigate the medical condition at all, right?

Correct, okay, and therefore you took no steps to investigate whether or not the medical condition was related to the absences, right?

Well, I understand that he did not have approved FMLA, so whatever medical condition he had was not approved for him to be off of work for.

That sounds like a yes.

Therefore, you took no steps to investigate whether or not the medical condition was related to the absences, right?

Sure, yes, okay, sure.

That's a yes, yes, right?

Yes, okay.

I'm sorry, but the court reporter does have to take down our language.

Okay.

So um have you are you aware of any other officers that have had physical therapy?

No, no, okay.

Are you aware of the department accommodating any officers for anything ever?

I mean, limited duty status, I'm aware of, but as far as why they're limited duty, I'm not privy to all of those things.

How does limited duty status accommodate an employee if at all?

Well, they would provide medical documentation indicating why they would need to be in a limited duty status, whether they had surgery or they were involved in an uh incident on duty, things like that.

Okay, what's an ODI?

That's an on-duty injury.

Okay, did Mr.

Benitez tell you that he was uh one of the reasons he was absent was because he was required to take physical therapy?

I don't remember him saying that.

Now the documents that we went through, there's a series of emails and other orders that we you went through with my colleague.

Do you recall that?

And this is for the C one.

You didn't write any of those, did you?

No.

You weren't sent any of those?

No.

No, okay.

And the same thing, you don't know what cap uh Lieutenant Looney was thinking, right?

Or Captain Looney, you don't know how this decision was ultimately made, do you?

No.

Okay.

So you you have no idea what the basis uh for the decision to um discipline uh my client was, right?

No.

Okay.

Just for the record I'm object to that line of question is as to that boast of phase two of the argument and not in phase one.

It goes to the weight of the evidence here.

Move on.

Okay.

Okay.

Did you because and you've said several times that uh Mr.

Benitas didn't provide you with uh there's a document ultimately from a doctor that says that he should be on three days a week do you you recall at least understanding that that existed right yes okay and you again took no steps to get that documentation right I believe if I'm curse correct that documentation was presented in the B case.

Okay where can you help us out please just make sure um in exhibit B08 um force um document 47 he did file a memorandum stating that his doctor um had him out of work for that prior case okay um until December 15th but I didn't get anything else regarding January 1st or second or January 2nd or 3rd and that's because you didn't ask for it right yes okay so I'm gonna show you now uh first which is B14 I think you have that is that this looks like a screenshot from a phone yes okay and it to me that looks like an email from Misty Taylor to Mr.

Benitez and other people do you see that yes did you get this email at any time um I don't know if this was included in I don't know the date of this email okay how about exhibit b twenty two did you get this document any time no okay but you'll agree with me that uh exhibit b twenty two is at least a medical record right you said B22 yeah um I don't is it requesting medical records I'm not really sure it looks like uh sure and I see that there's a cover page and there's some emails and then ultimately there's a document that says which is otherwise known as a uh WKC sixteen B a workers compensation application form do you see that no are there is there multiple pages to this that's the one that wasn't yes okay and my question is very simple you didn't get this document either did you no okay and that's because you didn't request it right um at the end of the interview I did tell officer um officer um benitas that he couldn't produce any documents okay right and you could ask you could have just as well you could have asked for any documents under the custody and control of the Milwaukee police department and you chose not to right sure yes okay all right I have no more questions for you thank you Greg no all right uh do you have any questions no no questions I have no questions thank you right then you're free to go thank you very much all right ladies and gentlemen we're going to break through lunch at this juncture we'll see you back here at one o'clock it's 10 minutes to noon at this time that'll give you some time to hopefully get your personal affairs in order and uh we will see you back here at that time will the room be locked or open thank you it's over you said at one o'clock yeah okay

Audio's good.

Good.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

All right.

We're going to start the afternoon session now.

It's a little about five after one.

And I'm going to ask you to call your first witness for the afternoon session.

Sergeant, please remain standing, please.

Very good.

Okay.

I work for City Milwaukee Police Department.

I'm a sergeant.

I work.

I'm currently assigned to the Internal Affairs Division.

How long have you been employed with the Milwaukee Police Department?

Since twenty eleven.

How long have you been a sergeant with the Milwaukee Police Department?

Since 2021, five years.

How long have you been assigned to the Internal Affairs Division?

I was assigned in January of 2025.

So just over a year now.

And to be clear for the commissioners, uh and the Internal Affairs Division, are you on the SIS side or the IAS side?

I'm on the IAS side for rules and uh procedure policy violations, not criminal.

Thank you.

Can you describe for me what your job do these are as a sergeant at the internal affairs division?

Yes.

At the internal affairs section, we will take complaints, uh, whether they're externally generated, which would be like a citizen complaint or an internally generated complaint, which is from one of our members, like a supervisor or something like that.

Okay.

And if an complaint is internally generated, can you explain to the commissioners uh what that would look like generally?

Generally, it will be uh documented on a memorandum, a department memorandum, um, regarding an allegation of misconduct of an officer.

Okay, or any rank individual with the police department.

And you're a little over a year with internal affairs.

Uh, how many cases have you investigated?

I tried to count this up.

I think I'm in the range of 50 to 60, 50 to 60.

Okay.

Have some uh uh from the your recollection of those 50, 60 cases.

Um have all of those allegations to be sus have all of those allegations been sustained against members?

No.

How many allegations roughly are those 50 to 60 have been sustained?

Um I would say a little over half, probably.

Okay.

From your time of investigation, can you explain to me what is your general procedure and your general process with investigating those 50 or 60 cases?

So generally a case will be assigned to me by my direct supervisor, uh, my lieutenant, and from there I will take the the file folder with all the information about the case and uh go through all the information that's provided to me and uh begin an investigation.

The first document that we generate is an initiation report, which basically states um the allegation of misconduct, uh specifics about what that is, and then also we list what that would be a violation of, and then from there um the investigation would include a summary report of all the facts of the case.

Okay.

Um you recall being assigned a matter uh involving uh Mr.

Christopher Benitas?

Yes.

Um prior to your investigation into officer, then officer Benitas.

Did you have any interaction with him?

No.

Okay.

Did you ever supervise him?

No.

Uh, did you ever engage uh with him off duty?

No.

Is it fair to say that the only conversation, the only interaction that you had with office with then officer Benitez is through the course of this investigation?

Yes.

Okay.

I want to take you to um, I believe uh how this case became initiated.

Do you recall when you were assigned the particular matter?

Um that would be dated on the initiation document, um, which would be exhibit D03.

Um, April 25th, 2025 was the date that I did the initiation.

So that would have been when I received the case.

When you reassigned it, okay.

And what were the particular charges?

If you can recall from memory, what were the charges uh that Mr.

or the potential allegations that Mr.

Benitez was said to have violated?

It was an AWAL violation, uh, absent without leave.

Okay.

Um, so still referencing that 101 uh 115 SOP?

Yes, competence uh regarding that SOP absence.

Okay.

Um you received and prior to looking at the documents, when you received the uh initiation or when you were initiated this doc uh this investigation, do you recall what documents were included in the folder, the file folder that you were provided?

Well, I'll say that this case was a little bit unique um in comparison to Sergeant Diedrich's case, um, just because this was kind of an open and ongoing investigation.

So I believe the initial documents provided were the memorandums from Sergeant Fritz and from Captain Teal.

Certainly.

I'm sorry, who was the last person that you said?

Sergeant Fritz and Captain Teal.

Thank you.

I'll draw your attention now, Sergeant, to exhibit D5 for me, please.

And recognizing that these are uh dual-sided.

I will draw your initial attention to um it's actually the second document that's in D5, that's page uh 43.

Do you see that?

Is that dated March 27th?

Dated March 27th, yes.

Is this that initial memo random that you were indicating um from Captain Teal?

Uh, this was uh directed to Captain Till, but the memorandum was written by Sergeant Christopher Fritz.

All right.

Is this what you were referring to with respect to um thank you for clarifying that for me?

Um is that what you were referring to with respect to the initial um investigation?

Yes, okay, cool.

Um when uh let me go ahead and just make sure I have this correct.

So what exactly was included in on that initial memorandum from Sergeant Fritz to Captain Teal?

Sure.

So Sergeant Fritz indicated in his memorandum that he was documenting an instance of um possible misconduct by Officer Benitez.

Uh he then explained that on Thursday, March 27th, 2025, um, Sergeant Fritz was he's a supervisor at District One on day shift, um, which would have been where Officer Benitez was assigned at that time.

Uh he said that he was alerted um in the morning time that the administrative assistant um reported to him that she was not being relieved um by an officer.

And uh Sergeant Fritz checking the schedule, they determined that uh Officer Benitez was scheduled to work and was uh her replacement for that ship that day.

Um Sergeant Fritz then did his um due diligence to check the XO boards and to the XO boards is basically um the schedule to see if there is any designation on that date that he had um requested a holiday or vacation or any other thing that would uh make him not report for duty.

Um and then uh there was no indication in the XO boards that he um had any kind of leave.

Uh then Sergeant Fritz checked with the night shift lieutenants um for the late ship because this was 8 a.m.

in the morning, so it was day shift hours.

So he had to check with the late ship lieutenant and the early shift lieutenant from the night before to see if they had received any um call-ins from Officer Benidas saying that he was going to be sick for his shift.

Um he noted in there that uh in this memo that uh he checked with both of them and they said they did not receive any sick calls.

Um he also checked our SharePoint site, um, which is kind of a log for uh any kind of sick call.

So in case um, you know, they had forgotten to mention it, they checked uh that log, which is where the lieutenant would have recorded if he would have called in sick.

Um, in addition, uh in this memorandum, um, well, let me get back to so Sergeant Posternich um was another sergeant that was assigned to District One at that time, and it's uh Sergeant Fritz indicated that Sergeant Posternich attempted to call Officer Benitez um regarding if he was sick or if he was coming in.

Uh, she said that that call went straight to voicemail, and then um also Sergeant Fritz looked at the um, like I said, the XO boards and noted that he indicated that the last time that's uh Officer Benitez would have been present for work would have been um by March 15th or earlier.

Again, this was dated March 27th.

So um there was a long period of absence between his last working day um up until the 27th, and all of those days were accounted for with either a sick call, regular off a holiday of vacation, again his regular offs, and then two more sick calls and then uh vacation day, and then on now March 27th, um, he did not have any indication as to why he would not be at work and they did not receive a sick call.

Um Sergeant Fritz then reported this information to Lieutenant Skinechke, who was the day shift supervisor, and um then they uh I believe Lieutenant Skinechki then ordered him to um draft this memorandum in regards to a possible AWOL violation.

Okay.

Um that was very thorough.

So let's go ahead and that's quite right.

Let's go ahead and tell me after you review this original this initiation uh memorandum, what did you do next?

Um then I started to pull documents.

Um I believe Sergeant Fritz did include with this memorandum a copy of the XO boards, like a screenshot of those XO boards that indicated this.

Um, but I double checked that information by looking into our city time system to see if um those records were accurate according to our payroll, um which they were.

Um and then like I said, this was an ongoing case.

So this was just the first incident that um of him not arriving at work on a scheduled work day.

Um, and then from there the investigation continued with um further incidents of him not reporting to work?

Correct.

Okay.

So just just so we can uh try to make this clear.

I don't want to well, I don't want to jump around too much, but I do want to identify this quickly.

Exhibit D6, D06.

Is that the exhibit that you were referring to with respect to uh where Mr.

Benitez was and how he was being carried?

Yes, that is that's a copy of the calendar for um it has his name listed to the right of the calendar, Christopher Benitas, and then this calendar would show um how he was being carried on those days.

It's kind of hard to see it's in color and on the computer, but it's in color on the computer, but it does it indicate on there uh that he was not present from October.

I'm sorry, not October, who from March of uh about March 17th, they're on, March 18th, they're on.

Am I reading that correctly?

Uh it's hard to tell for the 17th and 18th.

I think those are not highlighted because those were his regular days.

Um, but then yeah, from the 14th on I can't really tell from the the shades of this what what how those days were carried.

But like I said, um Sergeant Fritz did indicate in his um memorandum that on the 16th, he used a sick day, and then on the 17th and 18th, it was regular off.

And then, like I said, all the way through um until the the 26th, he had indicated um what his leave was, and then on the 27th would have been his work day.

And I believe that that was um the first day that they noted him as being UPT on paid time.

Sure.

Um so fair to say that uh you were able to substantiate uh officer or Sergeant Fritz's initial review?

Yes.

Okay.

So subsequent to you uh uh identifying that Sergeant Fritz's uh report was accurate.

What did you do next?

Um I began writing the um internal investigation.

Uh the next step would have been to um PI or request an interview with Officer Benitez um regarding his absence.

Um, however, this initial document, the memorandum was from March 27th.

However, Captain Teal's um memorandum for the initiation for this case was actually um later on, I believe April 22nd, and that document um was the true initiation for this because officer Benitez did not report back to work, but they gave him um a little bit of grace time to get his FMLA paperwork in case he um was still filing and needed to uh retroactively um be held as FMLA for those days.

Certainly I understand that.

So with respect to um your investigation, uh after you uh, and I understand that this was ongoing.

Can you tell me how difficult that was to investigate an ongoing case of AWOL?

I wouldn't say it was necessarily difficult.

It was just I would say it's a little bit different than other investigations, just in the fact that I was continuously receiving new documents and new information daily, whereas um even like with Sergeant Deidrich's case, uh hers were an incident that had already occurred and he had returned back to work in my case.

Um this was ongoing.

And so every day I was getting a new um email from the the supervisors at District One saying that they had ordered him in and he had not returned to duty.

Okay.

Um at any point in time, did you reach out to Sergeant Mysti Taylor at the medical section?

Yes, I did.

Why did you reach out to Sergeant Mr.

Taylor at the medical section?

I needed to verify with her uh as to whether Officer Benitez had approved um FMLA or any kind of leave.

Right.

Um, do you recall uh what if anything Sergeant Taylor informed you of?

Yes, she informed me that he did not have any approved FMLA.

Did he have any approved time off uh other than FMLA?

No, I was informed by the supervisors at District One that he was being carried as unpaid time off and that um throughout this investigation they had told him that he was out of um any kind of leave or time.

Um there were two instances in which they did get a hold of him and he said he wanted to be carried as sick, and so there were two days throughout that investigation where he was carried as sick, and that was um the days that they actually got a hold of Officer Benitez and he said to be carried as sick.

Um, after those two dates occurred, then they um told him that he did not have any sick time left and that he would be carried as unpaid time.

Okay.

Um throughout the months of March and April and into May of 2025, did Officer Benita's call in at all to call in sick, or was he always tracked down by his sergeants?

I am not aware of any times that he called in sick.

Um, as far as my investigation, he was the only time that um we were in, we as an MPD was in touch with him was when we contacted him and actually got a hold of him.

A lot of times um the calls were unanswered and emails were unanswered.

Okay.

There was, I will say though, there was one time when a sergeant did get a hold of him and asked him to call me at internal affairs regarding this investigation, and he did call me.

Okay.

When you were amassing this information, uh, what if anything did you do when you uh finished?

Or let me stop there.

Did you ever finish amassing this information?

I guess is a good question.

Well the answer to that is that this case was ongoing and there I didn't know if there was going to be any end in sight where he was going to return to work.

So therefore I had to find a point where I just concluded the investigation to turn that in to show that there had been um an allegation of misconduct.

Um, and then beyond the the period of this investigation, I am not sure as to when if he returned to work after that.

Okay.

I this was just the portion, I believe it went till to May 19th was the last date that I um was still analyzing his absence.

Sure.

Let's go ahead and take a look at your summary report because I knew that will be beneficial.

That's going to be exhibit D S in Dog 2, D 2.

So reference you have it's a 17 uh page long report.

And I believe from page one of 17, which is Bates Label 412 through page eight of 17, which is based label for 19.

Um is this as fair and accurate uh summary of the amount of days Mr.

Benitez was uh supposed to be scheduled for work and or regular off, and then what occurred on those days?

Uh yes, um, to the best of my ability, I just kind of indicated day by day um how he was being carried and what interaction we had.

If there was anything that was missed in that time frame, I believe it would be covered in um after I wrote that time log out.

Um, there's just a little bit more detailed information about um those days and how I got that information.

Sure, the corresponding memoranda um corresponding to that.

Um at any point in time from March of 2000, March 15th of 2025 through May 19th of 2025, were you made aware that Mr.

Benitez had approved time off for those time days that he did not show up to work?

Can you ask that again?

I most certainly can.

At any point in time from the March 15th, 2025 through May 19th, 2025, during the pendency of this investigation, were you informed by medical section that he had approved time off for FMLA?

Uh as far as I'm aware, he did not have any approved FMLA on file during any part of that of my investigation, March 16th through May 19th.

Okay.

Um 2025.

To clear up some of these questions, uh were you responsible at all for uh granting or approving Mr.

Benitez's request for FMLA?

No.

And who does that?

Uh that would be the medical section.

Okay.

Um subsequent to your or I guess corresponding with your investigation uh as all internal investigations.

Do did you have the opportunity to speak with Mr.

Benitez regarding the allegations against him?

Yes, I did.

Okay.

Can you describe for me briefly how you were able to get Mr.

Benita to come in for PI21?

I believe we had some phone contact um prior to him being served with the paper at with me ordering him via telephone to come into the district on the next on his next working day, which would have been the next day, um, to be served with the a PI 21.

Uh he did not show up on that schedule date and time.

And ultimately um Sergeant Diedrich and Sergeant Riley Um kind of tracked him down at one of his uh court appearances and served him with the PI 21.

So just to be just to be clear, he was presented with uh a forum in the Waukeshaw County courthouse?

Yes.

Okay.

Is that typical that you have to track down um members of the departments to serve them with a PI21 notice?

I would say because I had contact with him and ordered him in, um, he would have known uh like sometimes we do have to go out and find members, but in this case I had prior communication with him ordering him in and um the fact that we had to go track him down after he had been ordered in and knew the information that he was supposed to, I would say that is abnormal.

Okay.

Um if you can turn to exhibit D4 for me, D4.

Um is this that uh PI21 notice um that he was served in that Mr.

Benitez was served in the Walk County Courthouse in the Waukeshaw County Court House?

Yes.

Okay.

Didn't Officer Benitez show up to the hearing or the PI21 on May 19th at 12 p.m.

No.

Okay, what happened then?

Um so I should just clarify on this PI21 document that states the allegation for the officer, um, specifically what the the case is about.

And then there is a line um that says that your responses will be obtained and it it says specifically the room, um, the date and the time that uh his interview was scheduled for.

Um he signed that document um basically saying that he had been notified.

Uh however, on the date, which was uh May 19th of 2025.

Um I don't remember exactly I know it was that morning.

I'm not sure how close to noon it was, but he um contacted, he reached out and contacted me to let me know that um he was unavailable to come at noon.

Um, and then uh we talked and we were able to reschedule that um interview for 430 that afternoon.

And who was present in the room for that PI21 interview?

That would be myself as the um lead investigator, and then it was then Lieutenant Colleen Sturma, um, who was my supervisor uh was with me and um officer Benitez and his union representative uh was Michael Lees, Mr.

Michael Lee's So you had to reschedule four different people's schedules for that?

Yes.

During his PI21 interview, do you recall confronting Mr.

Benitas with any particular documents?

Um may I refer to my report?

Okay, Mr.

B or Mr.

Please L E E S Lee's I just want to make sure I say this accurately.

So you're asking if I showed him any documents?

Yes, did you confront Mr.

Benitez with any of the documents that are before you here today?

I'm on the wrong page.

Oh, yes.

Um, so I I think this is what I documented in my report that I showed um Officer Benita's the district one EXO board schedule.

Um, and he did then agree that there were no designations indicating that he had any scheduled um time off for March 27th or March 28th.

Okay.

Um, did you ask him any additional follow-up questions regarding his dates of not appearing at work?

Yes.

What uh did you ask him?

Um I asked, well, I started off by asking him if he was in fact absent without leave.

Um, and his response I I quoted in my report, according to you guys, I am yes.

Um, but then he also noted that he was under doctor's care.

Um, he mentioned that as well.

And then throughout the um investigation, he he kind of gave me um his version of uh what occurred.

Okay, and what was his version of what occurred?

Um he basically said that uh he was receiving medical care during that time, and he had requested the FMLA forms from our medical section.

Um he said that while he was under medical treatment, he requested that the staff at the medical facility uh handle those reports for him.

Um did you ask him if he was ever approved any time off for that time period?

I did ask.

Um I would say his answers weren't especially clear cut.

Um he he kind of mentioned a lot of different things.

Um when I asked him specifically about uh whose responsibility it was to ensure that the paperwork was filled out correctly.

Um he said that that would be the medical staff.

And is that accurate?

I think he might have misunderstood in that the medical staff does um determine whether the paperwork has been filled out correctly.

Um however, I was really referring to whose uh ultimate responsibility would it be to um ensure that those documents were filled out and that would fall on the member.

Why would that fall on the member to ensure that documents are properly filled out?

Because that's their responsibility to ensure that they have approved leave so that they're not absent without leave.

Subsequent to your um PI21 interview, what else did you do for this investigation, if anything?

Um I can also say that I reviewed uh all the emails that were sent.

Um, I believe I was just getting CC'd on the the almost daily emails that the um district one supervisors were sending regarding um when they were ordering uh officer Benita's to come to work, and um some of them informed him that he did not have any time off and he did not have any approved FMLA and that he was ordered to come into work.

Um I believe there were 19 emails in total um that I received regarding the supervisor's attempt to order him into work.

Certainly, and would those be um pages 472 to 48 in exhibit D5.

Uh this is under D5.

I don't know where the 472 in the bottom right corner there.

Oh, okay, yes.

Yes, 472, and then it goes on until um 498.

Yes.

And those are the consistent daily communications you received, almost daily communications you received.

Yes, they would not include um his regular off days, they wouldn't order him to work on his regular off days.

So I believe you said I just want to make sure that it's clear for the record.

How many days in total was Mr.

Benita's order to come into work that he did not appear for?

Um I know.

Well, I can't tell you the exact amount.

Um, I don't know if I counted uh specifically.

I know there were at least those 19 instances of um him being ordered into work.

Um some of the initial days, like um March 27th, um, like I said, he did not report for duty March 28th, he did not report for duty.

Uh Sergeant Fritz then went out and did a home check um and and spoke with a relative who indicated that he was receiving medical treatment and did not uh anticipate returning to work for at least a month.

Um then uh like I said, cat the captain of that district gave him a little bit of grace to um see if his medical paperwork was gonna come through after they were alerted that he did have um a medical issue as to why he was not coming back to work.

So some of those days, I'm not sure if they actually ordered him in because they were still waiting on that FMLA approval.

And then again, your understanding is that he did not get the FMLA approved prepped.

Okay.

Yes.

Um turning to uh the exhibit D7 for me, please.

D seven.

Can you describe for me what we're looking at on page 502 on D7?

Sure.

So supervisors have the ability to um check to see if an officer has uh acknowledged a topic.

Um this is kind of one of our compliance uh requirements that if there is any updates um to an SOP or um just to say that the officer is familiar with that SOP, um, they basically go online and um click a button to say that they acknowledge that topic that they have that they're familiar with that policy and procedure.

Meaning that if there was an update or change that the officer has read it and understands it?