Incident Details Report

9/10/2019

Collegedale Police Department

Employees: Duckett, Kolby (279)

Categories: Counseling - Remedial, Policy - Violation, Complaint - Exonerated,

Complaint - Not Sustained, Complaint - Sustained, Complaint -
Unfounded, Supervisor Notes Entry

Counseling - Remedial
For: Duckett, Kolby (279) Occurred: 8/16/2019
By: Westfield, Michael (260) Entered: 9/3/2019

In June 2019, I, Sgt. Westfield was advised by another supervisor about their concern of the
lack of the Watch List being logged on Alpha Team which consist of Cpl. David Holloway, Ofc.
Kolby Duckett, and Ofc. David Schilling. While checking and reviewing the Watch List for
June, I observed that Ofc. Duckett on days they were working, from June 1 to June 16th,
checked and or logged zero checks on the Watch List. Due to this shift wide inactivity, I
requested a meeting with this team to discuss this matter.

On June 19, 2019, a meeting was had with Cpl. Holloway and Ofc. Duckett. In this meeting,
it was said that not checking the watch list was unacceptable and that they were expected to
be checked each shift. When asked why they hadn't been checking their Watch List, both
advised they were sorry and they just had not been logging them. Cpl. Holloway went on to
state that many times they do check them but do not log them on the Watch List log. At that
time I gave Holloway and Duckett a verbal order for the all the Watch Lists in the district
which they are working to be checked twice a shift and logged. The order was for them to
check and log the Watch List near the beginning of the shift and once in the afternoon if calls
permitted until instructed otherwise. Cpl. Holloway and Ofc. Duckett both advised they
understood. On this same date, I spoke with Ofc. Schilling about the same issues and also
gave him the same order as Holloway and Duckett.

On August 13, 2019, I, Sergeant Westfield, began to review to check the Watch List logs to
see if my orders were being followed. The records showed that from the date of our last
meeting, on June 19th, Alpha Team failed to comply with my orders given during that
meeting. Ofc. Duckett logged seventeen when the total should have been twenty-four.
During the entire month of July, the Alpha Team failed to comply with my orders, per our
discussion on June 19, 2019. Ofc. Duckett logged a total of five when the total should have
been sixteen. From August 01 to August 11, on the days the shift worked, my orders were
not followed again. Ofc. Duckett also had a total of one logged check which should have been
eight.

On August 14, 2019, I once again requested a shift meeting to discuss the finding on the

Page: 1 of 6
On August 14, 2019, I once again requested a shift meeting to discuss the finding on the
review of the Watch List. It was expressed that all three officers had disobeyed my orders
regarding the Watch List.

Once again all parties apologized and Cpl. Holloway voiced again that they were checking the
Watch List but not logging it in RMS but were putting it in CAD instead. All officers were
reminded that my order was for it to be logged in RMS so it can be documented. At that time
the meeting ended.

It has been a long-standing practice since the Tyler RMS system was implemented years ago
that all Watch List checks be documented in the RMS Watch List log, an established
procedure that Alpha Team is well aware of and practices; however, to give Alpha Team the
benefit of the doubt a check of all documented Neighborhood and Business Patrols were also
reviewed in the event that the Alpha Team members had somehow mistakenly logged their
Watch List checks with their documented and standard patrol activity. A review of all Ofc.
Duckett’s documented neighborhood and business patrols between June 19 and August 11,
2019, showed that Duckett had checked 1 neighborhood that also happened to have an
address on the Watch List log during that same time period. Other than the Watch List log,
no other activity was found showing that Duckett had checked his watch lists as ordered. It
can, at best, be assumed that Duckett most likely checked the watch lists address that also
happened to be in the neighborhood he had documented.

By: Duckett, Kolby (279) Entered: 9/4/2019

On June 19, 2019, I was asked to particpate in the aboved listed meeting.
During this meeting I advised Sgt. Westfield that I had been checking the
watch log, but had not recorded them. I advised him that after this meeting
the would be logged consistenly. During this meeting Sgt. Westfield did ask for
the checks to be performed twice a day, if patrol duties allowed.

Starting June 19th I checked the watch list in my district every shift with the
exception of August 1st. Instead, Cpl Holloway checked the watch list in my
district on that date. During the time of June 19th and August 31st I worked
33 patrol shifts and checked the list 32 shifts. Also during this time, 17 of
those shifts I did not have a watch list in my district, 13 shifts were logged,
and 2 shifts there was a watch list added during my shift that I was not made
aware of. I had a total of 25 logs during this time.

During the meeting on August 14, Sgt. Westfield questioned us about not
checking the watch list as he directed, and I advised him that I had been
checking it on a regular basis and was not disobeying his directive. I asked him
to clarify if we were to check every watch list in the city or just our district, he
advised to only check the ones in our assigned district.

Page: 2 of 6
 On September 3, Sgt Westfield asked me to come into his office where he
advised me he had decided to go back and add the GT entry for us disobeying
his order between June and August. I asked him in the meeting to go back and
look at the information and he would see that I had checked my watch list
consistently since June 19th. Sgt. Westfield stated that upper administration
wanted the GT entered as insubordination, but he did not feel that was
warranted.

I confirm that I did not check my watch list two times each shift while the
order was in place from June 19 to August 14. However, according to a RMS
report, I did log 231 neighborhood checks, 217 business checks, 53 park and
walks, and 96 calls for service during the months of June, July, and August. I
was also off the schedule for a week in July due to a conference I attended.

I also have always logged my watch list into RMS, not the CAD system. Upon
looking into RMS reports, I was able to find evidence that all of my information
had been recorded into this and was available for viewing. If anyone is
interested in seeing the information, I would be happy to meet and provide
this.

While I welcome any type of counseling to help me improve my performance

as a Patrol Officer, I respectfully request that any write ups I receive be clear
as to what I have done wrong. In reading this entry, I feel the way it was
written has accused me of completely disobeying an order or not doing my
patrol duties when that is inaccurate according to the reports generated by the
RMS system.

Thank you, Ofc. Kolby Duckett

Supervisor Notes Entry

For: Duckett, Kolby (279) Occurred: 8/18/2019
By: Westfield, Michael (260) Entered: 8/18/2019

On August 6, 2019, I Sergeant Westfield was made aware of a Facebook post with the
contents involving a Collegedale police officer. In the Facebook post, it read " If anyone is
pulled over by Collegedale police officer for having your phone in your hand and his car
number is 101, be sure to remind him he was seen talking on his cell phone in a state that
has a hands-free policy."

The officer was identified was Ofc. Kolby Duckett who drives unit 101. I spoke with Ofc.
Duckett about this issue in which he advised he was on the phone headed home but could
not remember if it was a work-related call or a personal call. I advised him of the law which
states we as a police officer are exempt from the law as long as it is in conjunction with law
enforcement work-related duties, not personal calls.

Page: 3 of 6
Ofc. Duckett was also reminded of the email sent by Lt. Sapp on July 01, 2019, which states
" We must all do our part to set the proper example to our community. The law does exempt
emergency responders while they are in the performance of their duties, however, we should
not be making personal phone calls when driving unless using a hands-free device.
Additionally, we should only be making work-related calls with a hand-held device while
driving in the event of an immediate work-related need i.e. calling dispatch, supervisor, etc."
Ofc. Duckett stated he understood and would not let happen again if it was a personal call.

Attached is the email sent to the department by Lt.Sapp about the Hands-FreeLaw.

By: Duckett, Kolby (279) Entered: 8/18/2019

During the above mentioned meeting, I advised Sgt Westfield that I did not
believe it was a personal call but thought it was a phone call to Cpl Holloway,
my immediate supervisor. I later confirmed with Cpl. Holloway this to be true.
I explained to Sgt Westfield that it was not uncommon for me to speak with
Cpl Holloway at the end of shift, and according to TCA 55-8-199 this is
permitted.

I was also advised that the complaint was not a formal complaint and that it
was simply a citizen that posted on their personal Facebook. Sgt Westfield
advised it was not called in or reported in any other way.

I also expressed my concerns with a GT entry over cell phone use while on
duty. Officers use their phones for many reasons while on duty including:
Speaking with other Officers, Supervisors, Dispatch, Victims, Viewing
hc911.org/responses, CAD, GPS, etc.

Sgt Westfield did consult with me that he would speak with Lt Sapp about
letting the observed complaint be handled verbally in lieu of a GT entry.

After this, I was made aware there was another complaint regarding a different
officer using his phone and this complaint was handled verbally over the phone
and was not placed in that employees GT record. Although I am not opposed
to having any complaints being recorded, I would respectfully request that any
and all complaints of the same nature be handled equally among all officers in
the Department.

By: Sapp, Jack (179) Entered: 8/19/2019

I have met with Cpl. Holloway and Officer Duckett and informed them that
there have been no other complaints, either formal or informal, that I am

Page: 4 of 6
 there have been no other complaints, either formal or informal, that I am
aware of that have come in since the hands-free law went into affect and the
department's directive was sent out. I am aware of what the statute allows,
however Duckett has been informed that the city and/or department can be
more restrictive of state law. I noted to Duckett that this entry was not labeled
as a "complaint" but simply as a supervisor notes entry to document the issue
and the discussions that were had between he and his supervisory staff.

Supervisor Notes Entry

For: Duckett, Kolby (279) Occurred: 9/20/2018
By: Heath, Jamie (171) Entered: 1/4/2019

Lt. Sapp verbally counselled Duckett after Duckett was found to have voided a traffic citation
without informing the violator that he had done so. Duckett had also failed to record the
violator's phone number on the citation which kept him from calling them and informing
them of his decision to void. This action created quite a bit of controversy between the PD
and Court Clerk's office after the violator had come into the court clerk's office to pay and the
clerk had no record of the citation. Duckett was advised that he needed to record violator's
phone numbers and that it was his responsibility to notify offenders of any citations he may
void in the future, not the court clerk's.

By: Duckett, Kolby (279) Entered: 1/4/2019

Can you advise the date this happened? I recall the situation from a few
months ago.

By: Duckett, Kolby (279) Entered: 1/4/2019

Disregard. I see the date at the top. Apologies

Supervisor Notes Entry

For: Duckett, Kolby (279) Occurred: 12/14/2018
By: Heath, Jamie (171) Entered: 12/14/2018

Page: 5 of 6
During the month of November 2018, Officer Duckett’s in car camera was activated due to
the vehicle speeding without the use of his emergency equipment on 4 different ocassions.

On 11/13/2018 the camera was activated by Vehicle Speed. The camera’s metadata showed
the officer’s car traveling at 86 mph. There was normal traffic and no cars in front of the
officer to establish a standard flow of traffic that would require traveling 21 mph over.

On 11/16/2018 the camera was activated by Vehicle Speed. The camera’s metadata showed
the officer’s car traveling at 86 mph. There was no traffic and no cars in front of the officer to
establish a standard flow of traffic that would require traveling at least 16 mph over.

On 11/22/2018 the camera was activated by Vehicle Speed. The camera’s metadata showed
the officer’s car traveling at 89 mph. There was no traffic and no cars in front of the officer to
establish a standard flow of traffic that would require traveling 19 to 24 mph over.

On 11/22/2018 the camera was activated by Vehicle Speed, just 3 minutes after the camera
had already been activated due to the vehicle speeding. The camera’s metadata showed the
officer’s car traveling at 86 mph. There was no traffic and no cars in front of the officer to
establish a standard flow of traffic that would require traveling 16 to 21 mph over.

Ofc. Duckett has established a pattern, within the month of November, of speeding in his
patrol car and is encouraged to create habits that will slow his driving practices to within the
established speed limits, when not running emergency traffic. Should any further violations of
this nature occur, the officer may be subject to a remedial counseling and/or disciplinary
actions.

Page: 6 of 6