Sheriff Rutherford clarifies JSO policies and administrative procedures for officer involved traffic crashes in a news conference on March 5, 2009.

Good afternoon. Thank you for coming out. I am Sheriff John Rutherford of Duval County.

I've asked the media to come here today so they can help us deliver to the public some much needed information about the two recent crashes involving Jacksonville Sheriff's Officers while on duty. Specifically, our procedures following these incidents and our policies governing our officers.

First, let me express my condolences to the family of Mr. Matthew Ogden, who died following the accident on January 14th, on Merrill Road. This incident involved our patrol officer, Marcus Kilpatrick and has been greatly reported on.

I need to explain that when a JSO officer is involved in a crash on duty, where there is a life threatening injury or death, two things happen as a matter of course. We call upon the Florida Highway Patrol to conduct the investigation. And, when the injuries to officers or citizens are critical, or a death occurs, we place the officer on administrative leave pending a psychological "return to duty" assessment. Both have occurred in this case.

The investigation by FHP is theirs to comment about, and we do not comment on the criminal investigations of other agencies until they are completed.

It is also important to note that our own administrative investigations, whether it is the Safety Board or any other JSO administrative investigation does not begin until the criminal investigation is complete.

This is because of the "Garrity Rule" which resulted from a US Supreme Court decision. (Garrity v NJ) The "Garrity Rule" provides that if an officer is compelled to give any statements in an administrative investigation, those compelled statements would not be admissible should there be a subsequent criminal prosecution.

For that reason, we allow the criminal investigation to come to its conclusion before proceeding with our administrative investigations. This process is law. IF I FAIL TO HONOR THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PROCESS, I RISK LOSING MY ABILITY TO HOLD OUR OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE.

There has been a lot of discussion about this case relative to JSO's vehicle pursuit policy. The incident involving Officer Kilpatrick was a potential traffic stop. Not a vehicle pursuit. But I am not here today to discuss the progress of the investigation.

I made the decision to remove Officer Kilpatrick from full duty status when I was made aware the black box recovered from the vehicle indicated a high rate of speed.

As you all know, in the case of Officer Kilpatrick, I have already determined that this case will go immediately to JSO's Internal Affairs unit, when FHP has concluded their criminal investigation and the State Attorney's Office has concluded theirs. This is because I want it reviewed by JSO, for possible violations of state law; adherence to Policies and Procedures; and adherence to training.

There are times police officers are allowed to operate outside the traffic laws. Our policy requires that when an officer does operate his or her vehicle outside the traffic laws, they properly utilize emergency equipment, taking into consideration due regard for life and property. BUT, there are tactical exceptions to the rule.

My job is to make sure that when these incidents occur they are closely reviewed and if an officer acts improperly or not according to our procedures or their training, to address that.

This is why it is so important to let our FACT FINDING, EVIDENCE-BASED, THOROUGH administrative processes take place, and to let the public know what that process is. And the outcome. If we need to change policy or an operating procedure, or our own training methods, as a result of these investigations, or advancements in technology, or better policing tactics….we will.

That addresses the second incident, involving Officer Amanda Meyer, who was involved in a rear end collision with a tanker truck on Zoo Parkway. FHP is investigating that incident as well, and for that reason I can't say much EXCEPT, I know it was reported that the Officer was looking at her laptop. We've been asked if there is a specific policy here regarding its use while operating the police car. Our policy speaks to the need for officers to operate the police vehicles safely, but does not specifically reference the laptop. This device is integral to the success of our daily operations.

Both incidents will be reviewed administratively, and we'll know more when that process is concluded.

I will take some questions, but again, will focus my discussion on our polices and procedures and try not to say anything that could compromise two active investigations underway.
 

OFFICER KILPATRICK:
Sworn office as of 9-24-04 and was a Bailiff before that.
He has received three commendations.
He has had one chargeable on duty incident, when he backed into a parked car.

OFFICER MEYER:
Sworn officer since 6-26-02
Three commendations
No chargeable accidents