Milwaukee Police Officer Michael Vagnini, one of eight department employees under investigation over potentially illegal strip searches in District 5, searched a suspect's anal area for drugs in District 7 after he was called to assist officers there in July 2011, according to a police report obtained by the Journal Sentinel.

The defendant apparently knew the drill as well, turning around and bending over when Vagnini arrived, the report says.

"According to the report, Officer Vagnini had a reputation for doing this," said defense attorney Alex Cossi, who handled the case. "This was not a rogue happenstance. This was a tacit acceptance of strip searches without proper procedures or supervision."

The report shows that officers not involved in the questionable searches knew about them and that such searches occurred outside District 5, where the initial investigation began. The drug dealing charge against the man is the second to be thrown out in recent weeks amid allegations that the evidence was obtained illegally.

Neither Vagnini nor Milwaukee police spokeswoman Anne E. Schwartz responded to emailed requests for interviews.

Vagnini, six other officers and a supervisor were stripped of their badges and guns in March amid allegations they may have sexually assaulted people and violated their civil rights while conducting rectal searches for drugs. Milwaukee County prosecutors have launched a John Doe investigation, an inquiry in which prosecutors can compel testimony and subpoena documents without public knowledge. Simultaneously, the civilian Fire and Police Commission and the department's internal affairs division are reviewing a list of complaints dating back a couple of years.

Federal officials are closely monitoring the process, as is the Milwaukee Common Council.

If the allegations are proved, officers could be criminally charged, the city could be on the hook for damages in civil suits, and more drug offenders could go free. That the district attorney's office is conducting the John Doe also could pose a conflict of interest for prosecutors if they simultaneously pursue cases in which those officers are witnesses.

Officer called to District 7

The Journal Sentinel is not identifying the man in Cossi's case because the paper does not name victims of sexual assault.

The man and three others were arrested July 7, 2011, in the parking lot of a Citgo station at 4811 N. Teutonia Ave. Officers spotted a substance they believed to be codeine inside the van, according to the police report. After the group arrived at the District 7 station, the arresting officers called Vagnini in District 5. They called him because he "is highly knowledgeable with subjects in District Five, as well as District Seven," the police report says. They also called Vagnini because three of the suspects live in District 5 and because the gas station is on the border between the two districts, the report says.

Vagnini searched Cossi's client and another suspect in the booking room and found suspected cocaine "between (their) butt cheeks," the report says.

Under state law, that would be considered a strip search, which is defined as: "a search in which a detained person's genitals, pubic area, buttock or anus, or a detained female person's breast, is uncovered and either is exposed to view or is touched by a person conducting the search."

Before doing a strip search, an officer must get written permission from either the police chief or a supervisor - unless the officer expects to find a weapon. After the search, the officer is required to fill out a report that lists the names of the officers involved and the time and place of the search. The officer is required to give a copy of that report and of the written authorization to the detainee.

Cossi said his client was not provided with those documents.

An improper strip search is illegal and carries a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 for the officer who conducted it.

Cossi's client contends Vagnini went beyond a strip search and conducted a cavity search, which involves penetration.

Both the law and department policy prohibit police officers from doing a cavity search under any circumstances. Such searches can be performed only by a doctor, physician assistant or registered nurse. Done improperly, they could be construed as sexual assaults.

"I don't know how these guys were trained and what the procedures were," Cossi said. "That's a big question mark. What is the administrative oversight for these searches?"

At a March 22 news conference, a reporter asked Police Chief Edward Flynn to spell out acceptable search procedures.

"There are a lot of gradations here," Flynn replied. "I'm not making any excuses for anybody. Just speaking in theory, these are dynamic situations in which people are moving assertively, trying to ascertain if there's a threat to them or if somebody is holding contraband. There are things you can do that come close to being a body cavity search but aren't, and there are things you can't do."

The department tries to draw clear lines between what is allowed and what is not, he said.

"And if we're on the wrong side of those clear lines, we've got to get a handle on it, rapidly," he said. "At the very least, it's a serious, serious training issue, for crying out loud, but if we're in fact violating that policy willfully, then we've got to take appropriate action."

Flynn never explained where those lines are.

Cossi's client, who has two prior misdemeanors on his record that are not drug-related, initially was charged with possession with intent to deliver cocaine, a felony with a maximum possible penalty of 15 years in prison. After Cossi filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on an illegal search, the district attorney's office dropped the charge, saying the officers involved were unavailable to testify, Cossi said.

Earlier case

The outcome mirrors that of an earlier case, in which prosecutors dismissed a cocaine dealing charge against a man who had previously served prison time for selling drugs. In that case, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to second-offense marijuana possession and sentenced to three days in jail after his attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence in the case.

Reached last week, Kent Lovern, chief deputy district attorney for Milwaukee County, would not say how many cases handled by Vagnini or the other officers under investigation have been thrown out. Lovern also would not say how many such cases are pending or how the prosecutor's office would handle them.

Last month, he said such questions would be addressed "at the appropriate time."

"At this point, it is premature to project what impact the investigation will have on cases currently in the system," he said.