Dirty Chiefs-Sanctioned Corruption

---

Here is the latest update on Dirty Chiefs - Sanctioned Corruption. But before we get to the update, lets preview the Mission of the Tucson Police Department...

Tucson Police Department's Mission The mission of the Tucson Police Department is to serve the public in partnership with our community, to protect life and property, prevent crime, and resolve problems.

Now lets look at the core values of the Tucson Police Department...

Tucson Police Department's Core Values

Leadership

Each member of the organization is responsible for establishing the direction of the department and communicating the vision at every level of the organization. We show the way in our community by going first and guiding those who follow. We are entrusted with caring for the spirit of the organization. Leadership means we:

• Lead by example
• Do the right thing
• Look for and acknowledge things done right
• Create a trusting environment where people can develop
• Are willing to go beyond traditional expectations

Service Orientation

Each employee enhances the quality of life within our community and our department through dedicated service. Service Orientation means we:

• Are empathetic and compassionate in dealing with people
• Treat problems as important
• Follow through on promises – if we set an expectation, we meet or exceed it
• Treat people with dignity

Integrity

Our value as police employees depends upon the respect and confidence we earn from the community and each other. The integrity of each individual, as well as the organization, is necessary for citizens to give us their trust. Without this trust, we cannot expect to form a partnership with the community. Integrity means we:

• Are honest
• Admit mistakes and take corrective actions
• Do what we say we will do
• Behave consistently with our Department values

Excellence

We meet challenges and adversity with perseverance to attain individual and organizational goals. Excellence means we:

• Strive for excellence in everything we do
• Are responsible and dependable
• Are accountable
• Commit to our mission and values

Fairness

Fundamental to delivery of professional police service is the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals. Whether citizen or employee, all must be treated with dignity and respect. Fairness means we:

• Act consistently with our values and expectations
• Let compassion and courtesy guide our actions
• Have respect for all people, their ideas and opinions
• Apply rules, regulations and laws in an unbiased manner
• Treat others as we want to be treated

Teamwork

Teamwork is essential to the successful operation of the Department. The team must include all employees working in partnership with each other and the community to attain our goals. Teamwork means we:

• Recognize the police are the people and the people are the police
• Foster cooperation and collaboration with the public
• Include others in planning, decision making, and action
• Commit to the goals, objectives and plans of the team without concern for who receives the credit or blame
• Recognize open communication is fundamental to successful team efforts
• Are supportive of the organization’s efforts

Personal Responsibility

Each of us has a personal responsibility for the success of our community. We respect, care about, trust and support each other. We respect and encourage individual responsibility, while recognizing we have a right and obligation to participate in leading our community. Personal responsibility means we:

• Set a positive example in our personal and professional lives
• Seek challenges and risk success
• Take initiative
• Accept responsibility for our mistakes

Finally, lets look at the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. Stay with us, we're making a point...

Law Enforcement Code of Ethics

As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice. I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty. I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities. I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession...law enforcement. 

In an effort to uncover the truth and expose this coverup, Tucson's Corrupt Leadership.com submitted this entire investigation, everything that is posted below, to the Office of Professional Standards of the Tucson Police Department. Over five months later we received the below listed letter. Our complaint was cleared as "Unfounded" - no violations were committed. To reiterate, after reviewing the overwhelming evidence listed below over a period of over five months, presumably using Tucson PD's Mission Statement, Core Values, and the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics as a guide, the Office of "Professional" Standards found nothing wrong.

Our questions for these investigators are 1) Did you consider the Tucson Police Department Mission Statement and the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics when you re-investigated this incident?  2) What core values were displayed by the chief level commanders during the initial investigation as well as when they re-investigated this crime?  We looked, we mean really looked, and the only core value we observed was Teamwork.  We were actually impressed at how so many people came together to make a crime, committed by a former Assistant Chief of Police, just go away.  

We are aware that this decision was not made by one person, just as the decision to cover up former Assistant Chief Ramon Batista's hit and run collision on Cinco de Mayo wasn't perpetrated by one person. What we will say to the people who were involved in this corruption, named and unnamed, you have acted dishonorably. You have betrayed your oath to the people you swore to protect, both citizens and police personnel. We hope, whatever you were promised to participate in this cover-up was worth it. You traded your integrity for the next bar, the next star, or the next high-ranking position. You have no honor. 

This is the letter that was submitted to the County Attorneys Office. It was ignored.

May 6, 2020

Jonathan Mosher

Kell Olson

Pima County Attorney’s Office

RE: Assistant Chief Carla Johnson and former Assistant Chief Ramon Batista

Gentlemen,

As you know I was recently placed on the 15.1 list from the Pima County Attorney’s Office. My placement on this list was not due to anything that I did or failed to do, it was due to an administrative error. I have since been removed from the 15.1 list. 

When I learned I was on the list, I obtained a copy from the PCAO to confirm the information. As I was reviewing the list, I noticed some names of police personnel who were not on the list but should be. Two of the names that I believe should be on the 15.1 list are Ramon Batista, former Mesa Police Department Chief of Police and retired Tucson Police Department Assistant Chief, and Carla Johnson, a Tucson Police Department Assistant Chief. On May 5, 2016, Ramon Batista committed a hit and run. Carla Johnson was his supervisor at the time and failed to supervise and failed to complete an investigation. The following information was obtained from multiple public records requests.

Ramon Batista – Committed a hit-and-run in his department vehicle

Carla Johnson – Failed to supervise or investigate the hit-and-run

Synopsis:

On May 5, 2016 (Cinco De Mayo), Tucson Police Department Assistant Chief of Police Ramon Batista left work early. As he pulled into his gated community, driving his issued Tucson Police Department unmarked police car, he crashed into the gate. This collision caused thousands of dollars of damage to the gate. Assistant Chief Batista’s vehicle also suffered damage but the dollar amount for the damage is not revealed in any of the investigations I could find. Instead of remaining at the scene of the collision and notifying the owner of the damaged gate, as required by law, Chief Batista left the scene and went home. In doing so, Chief Batista committed hit and run. The owner of the gate was, of course, the homeowner’s association of Chief Batista’s residence. Chief Batista contacted acting Chief of Police Carla Johnson nearly 2 ½ hours after the collision. This notification is actually a short series of text messages. Chief Batista advises Chief Johnson that he hit the gate in his community and put a “scratch” on his hood. He advised that he had notified Matt Ronstadt (Office of Professional Standards Commander) and Paul Sayre (Tucson PD Human Resources Commander.) None of these commanders completed an Officer’s Report or any other documentation. The text message response from Chief Johnson said, “I’m sorry to hear that. We can all relate.” Chief Johnson’s investigation goes no further than responding to a text message.

The Home Owner’s Association Community Manager, Charlotte Preston, is contacted by the Tucson Police Department. The department acknowledges a Tucson Police employee had crashed into the gate. The date given for the collision is June 23, 2016, not May 5, 2016, the actual time of the collision. E-mail correspondence continues between the Tucson Police Department and Charlotte Preston for several months. In this time multiple estimates for the damage caused by Chief Batista are submitted. The amount of these estimates are $1,439.00, $7,307.00, and $10,500.00. 

On December 29, 2016, Charlotte Preston is contacted by the City of Tucson Finance Department/ Risk Management. She is advised that her claim was received by the City of Tucson 187 days after the incident of June 23, 2016, not May 5, 2016, the actual date of the collision. The City advised Ms. Preston that under Arizona Revised Statutes 12-821.01, any claim against a public entity in Arizona must be presented within 180 days of the cause of action. She was advised that they were unable to consider her claim as a result of its untimely filing.

Charlotte Preston only knew that the person who crashed into the gate was a Tucson Police Department employee. This employee, had been referred to as “our department member” multiple times as well as “our employee.” She was advised that if she wanted to know the identity of the person who crashed into their gate, they could look at Tucson Police Department Office of Professional Standards case number 16-0250. The employee investigated in that case is Assistant Chief Ramon Batista. 

Upon learning that the City of Tucson was not going to stand by the mistake of their employee and the HOA would not be reimbursed for the damage caused by “our department member,” she had her personnel walk through the neighborhood in search of a Tucson Police Department police car. A TPD marked unit was located. This vehicle was assigned to Lieutenant J Graves. Charlotte Preston assumed this was the vehicle that caused the damage to HOA’s gate. On January 18, 2017, she sent a bill to Lt. Graves and his wife advising them that because the City of Tucson refused to pay for the damage caused by Lt. Graves’ patrol car, the damage to the gate becomes the responsibility of Lt. Graves. Charlotte advised Lt. Graves that he is responsible for $7,307.00 for the damage caused by Chief Batista. 

Lt. Graves did not take this accusation lightly. He immediately advised his chain of command and he completed an Officer’s Report. It is quickly determined that Lt. Graves had nothing to do with the hit and run committed by Chief Batista. 

On January 19, 2017 (over eight months after the collision with the HOA’s gate) Charlotte Preston called 911 to report this incident to the Marana Police Department. She reported a “past occurred criminal damage claim.” She reported the damage that was caused by Chief Batista on May 5, 2016. While he was the suspect in this case, Chief Batista’s name was never mentioned in the report. The Marana case report, including photographs and e-mail correspondence, contains approximately 30 pages. Again, Ramon Batista’s name is listed zero times. An address is listed in one of the e-mails from Charlotte Preston advising that she had been advised that the person responsible for the damage lives at an address in the neighborhood. That address was redacted.

Chief Batista’s HOA would have to wait until June 26, 2017 for taxpayers from the City of Tucson to pay $5,000.00 to cover the cost of the damage caused by Chief Batista. That is nearly 14 months after Chief Batista crashed into the gate of his HOA. 

Administratively, when a member of the department is involved in a collision, their supervisor is immediately advised, a vehicle discrepancy form is completed, an officer’s report is written, department photographs taken, a case report completed, and if the department member could be cited (or arrested) they are required to submit to drug/alcohol testing. These forms and reports are to be completed in a short period of time (usually within a few days). The member is never to leave the scene unless it would be unsafe to stay. Of these required tasks, Chief Batista’s supervisor was advised nearly two and a half hours later, the vehicle discrepancy report was completed over six months later, Chief Batista’s Officer’s Report was written over two weeks later, photographs were taken ten days later, the case report was completed over six months later, and drug/alcohol testing was never completed.

Timeline:

May 5, 2016 16:30 hours– Ramon Batista’s collision occurred; leaves scene

May 5, 2016 18:46 hours – Notifies his supervisor via text message

May 21, 2016 – Chief Batista completes and submits his officer’s report

June 23, 2016 – Charlotte Preston, HOA Community Manager, is contacted by the Tucson Police Department who acknowledged that an unnamed officer collided with the gate.

June 27, 2016 – Case number 1606270163 is pulled and referenced in the Internal Affairs package (16-0250), however, this case report “doesn’t exist” when a public records request is made.

July 19, 2016 – Antech Corporation provided an estimate of $1439.00 to repair the gate

July 26, 2016 – Antech Corporation provided an updated estimate of $10,500

September 7, 2016 – Chief Batista is served with a Notice of Investigation

November 10, 2016 – Vehicle Discrepancy Form is completed

November 16, 2016 – Tucson Police case report 1611160572 is created to document collision

November 17, 2016 – Chief Batista is notified of discipline

November 25, 2016 – Chief Batista was served with an “A” violation for the collision, which was “restorative supervision,” (non-discipline).

December 12, 2016 – Eagle Gateworks Inc. provided an estimate of $7,306.70

December 29, 2016 – City of Tucson denied claim to victim HOA

January 18, 2017 – Tucson Police Lieutenant James Graves was accused of damaging the gate. He and his wife received a bill for $7306.70.

January 19, 2017 – Incident reported to Marana Police as criminal damage by Charlotte Preston. The case report (1701-0749) is cleared as a civil matter. 

January 23, 2017 – Marana Police Department Deputy Chief Reuben Nunez contacted the Tucson Police Department Command Staff acknowledging Marana PD’s response to this incident.

July 2017 – Chief Batista was hired by Mesa Police Department.

Analysis and Conclusions

Ramon Batista:

Administrative Violations – Chief Batista left the scene of a collision prior to advising his supervisor. He then advised her by text message nearly two and a half hours later. The following Tucson Police General Orders were violated.

1330.2 Obedience to General Orders, Procedures and Policies Required

All members shall observe and obey all laws, City Administrative Directives, department General Orders, department procedures and policies, as well as any procedures and policies established by their commanders.

1330.4  General Responsibilities and Requirements

All members shall perform their duties as required or as directed by law, the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Arizona, department General Orders, department policies and procedures, City Administrative Directives, or order of a superior officer. The administrative delegation of the enforcement of specialized laws and ordinances to particular units of the department does not relieve members of other units from the responsibility for taking prompt, effective police action to enforce those laws when the occasion arises.

1330.7  General Standards of Expected Conduct

Members shall not engage in any conduct, whether on or off duty, which is unbecoming or detrimental to their duties, position, or the department. All members shall conduct their private and professional lives in such a manner as to avoid adverse reflection upon the department or themselves as members of the department. Members shall treat each other and all persons with whom they have contact with respect and courtesy.

1330.10  Criminal Conduct Prohibited

Members shall not engage in any conduct, whether on or off duty, regardless of their whereabouts, which is in violation of the law. Criminal conduct, in and of itself, is sufficient grounds for disciplinary action against a member, regardless of whether or not the member is cited, indicted, tried, and/or convicted for any particular offense.

1330.19 Untruthfulness

Members are required to report completely, honestly, and accurately all facts and information pertaining to any investigation, whether criminal or administrative, or other matter of concern to the department.

3652 Collisions Involving Department Vehicles

When a department vehicle is involved in a collision, the operator or investigating member shall immediately request that a supervisor respond to the scene. Documentation of vehicle collisions shall be made in accordance with the guidelines established on the current version of the City of Tucson Property Damage/Personal Injury Report (City Form 103). Documentation is still required for incidents where no damage to either vehicle is apparent and no injury is alleged.

3652.4 Documentation

When a department vehicle sustains collision damage the following documentation is required:

· Incident Report;

· Personnel Report; and

· City of Tucson Property Damage/Personal Injury Report (City Form 103).

Any collisions involving department vehicles shall be reviewed by the member’s chain of command.

3662 Other Property Damage

When non-City property is damaged as a result of action by a Department member appropriate documentation shall be forwarded through the chain of command with copies routed to the Legal Advisor. Reports completed by the member will include:

• Incident Report;

• Personnel Reports, if applicable; and

• City of Tucson Property Damage/Personal Injury Report (City Form 103).

When someone other than a Department member damages City property, appropriate enforcement action shall be taken.

Criminal Violations – Ramon Batista left the scene of a collision that he caused, involving property damage belonging to another person. The victim didn’t know who caused the significant damage to the entry gate for over eight months. There is no documentation that she was ever told who was responsible for hitting the gate. The following traffic statute was violated.

28-665 Striking fixtures on a highway; classification

A. The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting only in damage to fixtures or other property legally on or adjacent to a highway shall:

1. Take reasonable steps to locate and notify the owner or person in charge of the property of:

(a) The fact of the accident.

(b) The driver's name and address.

(c) The registration number of the vehicle the driver is driving.

2. On request, exhibit the driver's driver license.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

Carla Johnson:

Administrative Violations – Acting Chief of Police Johnson was advised of the collision by text message. Chief Batista was her subordinate at the time and she failed to respond to the scene, direct another supervisor to go to the scene, or even ask any follow up questions. Had she asked about the timeline or other common questions in these circumstances, she would have been equipped to properly investigate what had occurred. The following Tucson Police General Orders were violated.

1330.25 On Duty Conduct Standards; Completion of Assignments: 

Members are expected to thoroughly and professionally complete any and all assignments, duties, or tasks for which they are responsible.

An additional area of concern has to do with Marana Police Deputy Chief Reuben Nunez. While there aren’t any known laws or general orders violated, he acknowledged his role in this investigation when he contacted TPD command staff on January 23, 2017.  The contact that Marana Police had with the victim HOA was initiated by a 911 call for service for “a past-occurred criminal damage claim.” Chief Batista’s name is not listed anywhere in the case report, which is approximately 30 pages. Additionally, the call for service was cleared as a “civil matter” rather than a hit and run or criminal damage code. Any time a police officer is involved in an incident, their name is included in the report, regardless of their role. My concern is that Deputy Chief Nunez is a retired Tucson Police Captain and a personal friend of Chief Batista. I have never seen a case report where an involved officer’s name is completely omitted from an incident report.

This investigation has left me with many questions. I have listed them below.

1. Why are there two incident dates? May 5, 2016 and June 23, 2016

2. If the estimates for the damage caused by Chief Batista are $1,439, $7,307, and $10,500, why did the City of Tucson tax payers pay $5,000? Why did it take over a year for the victim HOA to be paid? Did the victim HOA have to come up with the difference for the damage or were the City of Tucson taxpayers duped out of $5,000? We will never have an answer due to the lack of investigation in the early stages.

3. Why didn’t Chief Johnson, at a minimum, direct Chief Batista to take a photo of the damage and send it to her work phone in the text string through which they were already communicating? A digital photo of the damage would clearly show that the damage to Chief Batista’s vehicle was not a “scratch” and further action on her part was appropriate.

4. Chief Johnson was paid $136,720.88 in 2016. It is her job to know more, and if she doesn’t know, it is her job to find out. She was presented with facts that a high ranking police official had committed a criminal act. Why did she fail to act?

Collisions sometimes happen. With the amount of miles that officers drive, it is expected that mistakes happen, unless the member was impaired. That would change this investigation from a simple collision to a felony DUI/hit and run. 

At the time of this incident and subsequent investigations, Chief Batista was in the running for Chief of Police for the City of Mesa as well as Peoria. His name being mentioned in a hit and run/felony DUI/criminal damage collision would derail those plans.

While I don’t have any personal negative feelings toward any of the officials in this document, I do believe that police officers, regardless of rank, should conduct themselves in a manner that is beyond reproach. The actions described in this report have betrayed the public’s trust. This betrayal should be addressed.

I’ve attached the following documents for you:

Marana Police Case Report 1701-0749

Tucson Police Department Internal Investigation 16-0250

City of Tucson Finance Department/Risk Management Claim #16626

If you have any questions I can be reached at (520) XXX-XXXX. I thank you for your time.

Sincerely, 

James Voss

**Supporting Documentation is Listed Below**