Police Committee, February 4, 2015

I would like to begin by extending congratulations to Sgt. Tucci and Ofcr. Pepitone on
their promotions, and to the Detectives for their recognitions by the FBI, to the many
officers who received recognitions from the Superintendent this evening for their recent
apprehensions for burglaries and break-ins. I would also like to welcome the new
officers to the force.
I would like to thank you Superintendent for your report and for the responsible and
thorough manner in which you and Captain Thomas conducted the investigation into the
social media complaint of racial profiling.
It is clear that the officers involved acted in a completely appropriate way and that there
was no profiling or racial motive involved. Not only is it clear that we do not have a
problem with police in Lower Merion, but it is clear that our police, through their superior
training and through the policies and procedures established over many years, set the
standard for police professionalism and integrity.
There is no question that this matter has been upsetting, to many people and for what I
suspect are many divergent reasons. I hope that everyone in the community, but
especially those on this Board, have learned a lesson from this.
When allegations are made, especially highly charged and emotional allegations,
leaders of a community have a choice. They can act responsibly, or they can fan the
flames. We have seen high profile political leaders across the country choose to
enhance anti-police sentiment. And this was the broader context in which Lower Merion
leaders had a choice to make a week ago.
In this case, it is clear that some members of this Board chose not to act responsibly
and instead chose to join in the fray and encourage and fan the flames.
Within hours of the original post on this matter, one commissioner was not seeking to
keep calm and encourage people to wait to find the facts, instead that commissioner
was on social media himself, fanning the flames, encouraging everyone to contact their
respective commissioners and voice their views to voice their views on a posting that
has been proven to be full of inaccuracies. That was not responsible community
leadership.
Although an investigation was in progress, President Rogan chose to make a statement
last Wednesday that also fanned the flames of anti-police sentiment. She chose to imply
a history of racial prejudice and intolerance by the Township organization an
unsubstantiated claim. Instead of waiting to obtain the investigation report and
understand the facts, she indicated that we cannot expect every individual in an
organization to be at his or her best every day and that if remnants of prejudice remain
in the Lower Merion organization, they will be properly dealt with.

As I communicated to President Rogan directly, I thought her comments were, and

would be interpreted as, anti-police. They were out of step with the Townships process
and, respectfully, they were unwise. All comments on the substance should have been
held until the investigation had time to be completed.
The members of the Lower Merion Police Department are professional, courageous and
committed to the public safety of our community. The sacrifices that they and their
families make every day for the residents of Lower Merion warrant our praise and
thanks, as well as our patience in waiting until the investigation had been completed
before commenting on the merits of the allegations, fanning the flame of anti-police
sentiment.
I do not think President Rogan or the other commissioners intended to foment anti
police sentiments. But it is not good intentions that make for good community leaders; it
is responsible, measured, fully informed action that makes for good leadership.
An apology is owed to the police department.
I hope, as well, that this is a lesson to those who choose to communicate about
important matters on social media. You have a choice too you can choose to use
social media in a responsible way or an irresponsible way. The responsible way to
handle a complaint is to make a formal complaint directly to the police department, and
you can do so anonymously not to make unsubstantiated allegations on social media.
When we talk about inappropriate behavior in Lower Merion, surely it should include the
irresponsible use of social media.
I commend those Commissioners who refrained from posting on social media, and from
otherwise commenting, on the substance ahead of the investigation.
I understand and appreciate that there are those in our community who feel they are
discriminated against because they are a minority by way of race, or religion, or
gender. I agree that a community conversation about those very things is important.
That conversation must take place in a very careful and responsible manner, separate
and apart from this allegation of police misconduct that has been shown to be false. It
is very hard to have a productive conversation when people accuse the police of things
they didnt do and then others use unfounded allegations to label our entire police
department.
Let me be clear, it is very sad to me personally that anyone in our community feels that
they are being mistreated or treated differently because of their skin color, gender, or
religion and that is clearly something that we should all work on to address. But let me
be equally clear that that is not a platform or excuse to make irresponsible, unfounded
comments or complaints about our police department or our township organization.

TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION POLICE DEPARTMENT

DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM

INTEGRITY
PROFESSIONALISM

Thursday, January 29th via phone and a visit to the residence. At 1:30 pm on Thursday,
we reached the resident via phone.
It was learned that the resident had driven past the first stop and watched the second
stop from her residence, and believed all the males were in their early teens.
During the course of our conversation, we informed her that the individuals she
observed were in their 30s and 40s except for the one 18 year old, and that our
department does not stop juveniles for shoveling snow, raking leaves or any other
similar activity. She was also informed that the canvassing and soliciting code was
established many years ago at the request of residents who felt uncomfortable and did
not want strangers knocking at their doors and that the department had investigated 141
soliciting complaints in 2013.
The resident expressed surprise about the information provided and felt that the
Township should do more to notify residents about this ordinance. In response to her
inquiries about the regulation, she was informed that the police department hosted a
well attended, televised community meeting in November 2013 which covered this issue
and that all Township codes are available on the Township website. Her response was,
no one is saying you (LMPD) did anything wrong, but we should address the
emotional undercurrent of race relations in the Township. We concluded the
conversation by asking her to feel comfortable and not hesitate to contact the police
department in the future if she had any concerns about the departments handling of
any incident.
Upon review of this incident, the police department has determined the following:

During the initial interview, both groups of men were allowed to stand on the
sidewalk and move about freely, they were not handcuffed nor did any officer
make any physical contact with them.

During the first stop on Surrey Lane, the three males were asked to sit down
when an active arrest warrant was discovered for one of the individuals.

The entire incident on Surrey Lane lasted 20 minutes.

The three males remained in a seated position for approximately ten (10)
minutes until it was determined the issuing agency (Fairfax, VA) would not
extradite.

When the investigation concluded the three males approached the officer and
shook his hand.

During the second stop on Overbrook Parkway (the incident posted about) the
officer had witnessed the men soliciting several properties before going to the
posters property, and having seen that a transaction had taken place, waited

until the clearing of the area appeared to be near the end before initiating the
stop.

The encounter lasted 23 minutes.

The two males were asked to sit when a possible arrest warrant was discovered
for the 34 year old subject.

The two males remained seated for eight (8) minutes until it was determined that
the subject did not fit the description of the wanted person.

The males were told to finish their work before they left. No citation was issued.

The officer spoke to a male resident of the property and explained the reason for
the stop and the Township code.

Having the males sit in these circumstance is an excepted method of restricting

their movement while conducting further investigation and is much less intrusive
than handcuffing or placing them in the back of a patrol car.

In reference to the enforcement of the ordinance on Canvassing and Soliciting, although

it is not specifically listed as an exemption, it has been the policy and practice of the
township to not require juveniles to obtain permits for such activities as yard work or
shoveling snow. We also conducted a review of our records to determine the number of
complaints received related to canvassing and soliciting and determined the following:
Canvassing and Soliciting Complaints
Year
Dispatched Incidents
2013
240
2014
329
Total
569

Incident Reports
141
95
236

The investigation is concluded and it has been determined that the investigating officer
had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of these five adult males for
violation of a Township Code. During the officers investigations, it was within policy
and practice to restrict the mens movement after it was learned that one subject on
both stops had possible outstanding arrest warrants.
As soon as the warrants were resolved on both stops, the officer told the men that they
could stand. The Mobile Video recording showed that the officers demeanor was
relaxed, non-threatening and respectful. Additionally, he provided a full explanation of
his actions to the men he had stopped. The demeanor and conduct of the subjects
stopped was also casual and non-threatening as well, including smoking cigarettes and
talking about sports with the assisting officers. The officer also provided an explanation
of his actions to the male resident of the home on Overbrook Parkway at the conclusion
of his investigation.

Upon a thorough and comprehensive review of these incidents it is clear that the officer
acted in a respectful, professional and appropriate manner during his interaction with
these citizens. The tactics utilized and the professional manner in which the officer
conducted the investigations conformed to all policies and training of this department.