Board says Chief waited too late to discipline officer for actions

The Eunice Fire and Police Civil Service Board ruled Wednesday night that a leaked video from within the Eunice Police Department was initially investigated by Chief of Police Ronald Dies in February 2013 and that his resumption of an inquiry months later violated the rights of the disciplined officer involved.
The board determined that nearly nine months passed before Chief Dies disciplined Officer Richard Abadie, after a youtube rendition of the traffic stop video went public and prompted the disciplinary action, which occurred on February 3, 2014.
The illegally leaked video from Abadie’s squad car camera showed the early morning arrest of Archillius Hebert on Feb. 10, 2013. The “choking” video surfaced in November.
The board also determined the chain of command which viewed the video during the week of the incident in 2013. Officer Chase Goodeau – who testified Wednesday – said that he arrived on the scene and did not witness the choke hold by Abadie on Hebert until after he viewed the video to make his initial report on the incident.
Goodeau said he then gave the video to his immediate supervisor Sgt. Mike Dunn –who turned the video over to Deputy Chief Varden Guillory. Guillory testified that he urned a flash drive of the video over to Chief Dies. Guillory, as the previous officers, requested that the video be reviewed by Chief Dies.
“He (Dunn) told me that I needed to review the traffic stop video,” said Guillory to the board members. “Because maybe there may be policy violations that I need to be aware of, so I needed to review the traffic stop video.”
Guillory said that he reviewed the video “several times.” Following that, Guillory said that he submitted the video footage to Dies with the recommendation that Dies review it. Guillory said that nothing happened, nor was there any discussion between him and the chief, after Dies viewed the video in February 2013. Guillory said that no action or discussion took place until after the video surfaced on youtube in November.
Chief Dies told the Civil Service unit that he viewed the video in the company of Lt. Richard Daigle – who, at the time, was in charge of handling internal investigations within the Department.
All of the above mentioned witnesses were subpoenaed at the request of Officer Abadie and were sequestered during the meeting.
Before the board made its determination, Dies was asked by Lt. Donnie Thibodeaux, the police department board member, as to why Dies waited nine months after the incident before taking any action. Dies replied:
“The video was submitted by...I’m not sure, youtube or whatever, and the news media got it and they inquired about it,” said Dies to the board. “And then from there, I initiated an investigation.”
When Keith Vidrine, board chairman, asked Dies if anyone in the department had any knowledge of the video before the footage was leaked to youtube.com, Dies replied,
“I was advised that this might have been out before,” said Dies to the board. “I had been told that I reviewed it, that I looked at it. I look at a lot of videos from time to time, from different situations that occur. I possibly have looked at it. But, as far as any complaints made on the behalf of this being a violation, there was no formal complaint made. No violation occurred and there was no complaint made.”
At that point, Vidrine reminded Dies of the investigative laws and rights for police officers. Vidrine said that if a formal, written complaint is submitted then 14 days are allowed to begin an investigation. However, once the investigation has begun, a time period of 60 days is allotted for completion, according to Vidrine.
Abadie’s complaint letter allegedly stated that his police officer’s bill of rights were violated, according to Vidrine. Abadie then said that he acknowledged that the video was watched by “the administration” some time during the same week that the incident occurred in February 2013.
“It was decided that there was no reason to start an investigation because nobody made a formal complaint,” said Abadie to the board. “When I was informed that I was under an IA (internal affairs) investigation...after November, when (the video) became public, I was informed that I was under investigation at that time. I did ask the chief, ‘why am I under investigation now?’ when he watched (the video) previously and decided that there was no wrongdoing at the time.”
Abadie said that the chief stated that no disciplinary action was taken because of no formal, written complaint being submitted. Abadie said that he was told some 10 months later that “the video was the complaint.”
“I asked (Dies) how can a video make a complaint?,” said Abadie.
Dies said that “the news media” made the complaint. At this point, Dies said that he began an investigation.
The police chief also said that after he reviewed the video in February that he did not see “anything out of the ordinary” and that “nothing jumped out” at him. Dies also did not recall if there was audio with the video.
“Nothing grabbed my attention to me,” said Dies to board member Thibodeaux. “I saw something, but was it really what I saw?”
“I’ve seen the video and I remember every bit of it,” said Thibodeaux. “And I saw it back then. I don’t see why you don’t recall.”
Dies said that he sees and reviews “a lot” of videos, possibly more than Lt. Thibodeaux. Dies couldn’t remember who he watched the video with and what he saw at the time of the initial viewing.
“So, you watched the video and you didn’t see nothing wrong?,” asked Thibodeaux of Dies. “Whatever (Abadie) was written up for (in 2014), you didn’t see nothing wrong with it the first time you watched it (in 2013). But then you watched it again, now there was something wrong?”
Thibodeaux informed Dies that there doesn’t have to be a formal, written complaint to begin an investigation when a video that needs reviewing is submitted.
The board then determined that once the video reached and was reviewed by Dies via the chain of command within the department, so began the official investigation into the possible disciplinary matter, an investigation which had to be completed within 60 days, not many months later.
Also during the hearing, Dies let it be known that the city of Eunice had settled out-of-court with a Ville Platte attorney who represented video victim Archillius “Keke” Hebert, who pleaded guilty in City Court in May 2013 to charges stemming from the Febrary 2013 incident. Hebert was back on the police blotter in September 2013, facing narcotics charges. The settlement between the city and Hebert was for an undisclosed amount of money, according to Dies.