Loveland Police Detective Brian Koopman has two pending suits against him and is being investigated on allegations of perjury, and officials believe they have the processes in place to help them reach an outcome.

Loveland Police Department and the city of Loveland agreed to discuss the internal processes they use to launch internal investigations, involve external investigators and decide whether an employee should be placed on administrative leave.

They also talked about their policies on anonymous reporting.

Internal Investigations

The city’s Human Resources Department and the police department have policies on complaints against employees, whether internal or external.

When it comes to complaints and criminal allegations filed against officers, Loveland police officials say several factors go into the internal investigative and decision-making process.

Lt. Rick Arnold said the professional standards unit, which consists of himself, Sgt. Mike Halloran and Sgt. Justin Chase, investigates the more-serious allegations.

About the Series The Reporter-Herald is examining the issues surrounding a pair of lawsuits against a Loveland police detective, the investigative processes within the department and community reaction, in a three-day series, which began Friday. Friday: Two lawsuits allege Loveland police acted beyond legal limits to investigate cases. Saturday: Loveland police and city officials outline internal processes they use to investigate their own behavior. Sunday: Elected leaders and community members discuss their concerns about the investigation process and the resources spent on defending the city’s court cases.

“Most investigations can be done by an officer’s supervisor, but some complaints rise to an internal affairs level … The investigators in an internal investigation are fact finders,” Arnold said. “We don’t decide findings; we don’t reach conclusions; and we don’t make recommendations.”

He said Police Chief Luke Hecker and the appropriate division commander then take the information and come to a conclusion.

According to Arnold, the department received 34 complaints in 2014 out of 81,000 calls for service.

Out of the complaints, the professional standards unit verified seven complaints against officers — which means a policy was in fact violated by an officer.

While he said complaints normally are investigated within 30 days, there are factors that could lead to a longer investigations — including ongoing criminal investigations, witness availability and other considerations. Only the chief can determine the validity of reasons to prolong investigations.

Arnold said that many factors go into making the decision of whether an officer is put on paid administrative leave and that the chief of police makes that decision.

“There are so many factors that can weigh into it that it’s difficult to talk about hypotheticals,” Arnold said. “… The police (department) on a daily basis understands the trust of the community is extremely important and critical to its operations. You earn the trust of the community on a daily basis with every point of contact in the community.”

City Manager Bill Cahill said some of the factors taken into consideration about placing an employee on leave are job duties being greatly impeded or there’s a danger or threat of keeping an employee on — but it depends on the severity or character of the charge. And, like Arnold, he said it’s case-dependent.

There are also a number of options for disciplinary action, not just paid administrative leave, according to police and city policies. Other actions can include oral corrective communications, counseling and training, written warning, suspension without pay, demotion in rank or pay level and dismissal. And there are different levels of investigations, depending on the nature and severity of the claims, according to Cahill.

While the city wants to investigate every claim thoroughly, according to City Attorney Tami Yellico, it has to treat employees fairly.

“The city has to balance a lot of issues in that process,” she said.

As far as criminal allegations go, Arnold said many factors are considered before deciding whether there is a conflict of interest in investigating one of the department’s officers.

“If a complaint is criminal in nature, this is at the chief’s discretion,” he said. “We can seek input or evaluation from an outside or independent source and we would consult with the (District Attorney’s) office to evaluate and handle it. We would handle the allegation or hand it off to another agency.”

One of the reasons the police department doesn’t conduct internal investigations during criminal investigations is because of what’s called the Garrity Advisement — anything employees say in an administrative investigation can be used in a criminal investigation. Garrity protects employees and their constitutional rights — it compels them to tell the truth, knowing they won’t get disciplined in both the court and by their employer.

That doesn’t mean they won’t be charged for criminal behavior, but it does mean that the evidence used against them can’t come from any type of compelled statements.

“What Garrity did for law enforcement was create an environment where an organization can compel an employee or employees to cooperate and tell the truth in an internal investigation or administrative investigation,” Hecker said.

What that translates to, Hecker said, is if the department receives a complaint about a police official that has a criminal element, the process is to notice the employee of the investigation that will take place.

If the information received leads the investigators to believe the conduct was criminal, then before starting the internal investigation, officials will notify the district attorney.

If a criminal investigation takes place at the DA’s office, the internal investigation is suspended, and based on the DA’s investigation conclusions, the police department can take action against the employee.

Cahill said there’s a difference between criminal investigations and internal investigations in that any investigations that aren’t carried on by a third party are considered a personnel matter, and employee privacy rights have to be upheld.

In criminal cases, he said, city officials don’t comment on pending investigations. In civil cases being adjudicated in court, there’s a need for caution, he added.

Cahill said he doesn’t intervene in cases he becomes aware of because he is in the chain of appeals for cases.

“If I have intervened too much at the early stages, I have to (recuse) myself,” he said.

Yellico said although officials don’t want two investigations going on at the same time, once one is completed, it doesn’t preclude the city from conducting its own.

Brian Koopman and Luke Hecker

Both Koopman and Hecker are longtime officers with the Loveland Police Department.

Koopman has received seven meritorious service awards and 20 department performance and case involvement recognitions, according to Loveland Police Capt. Tim Brown.

Brown said the detective was awarded employee of the year in 2006 and 2013 — an award both nominated by and voted upon by the members of the department.

“He’s one of the lead investigators in (the cyber crimes unit) and he is one of two who originally brought that unit or aspect of investigations into the police department,” Brown said.

Koopman has been with the department since April 2002.

Hecker has received 53 letters of recommendation — commendatory action reports, three meritorious service awards and one employee of the year award, according to Brown.

He has also been awarded one medal of valor.

Hecker has been with the Loveland Police Department since December 1985.

Koopman investigations

Although Hecker declined to comment on ongoing personnel matters as did Koopman, Hecker said when he recognizes the need to launch an internal investigation, he implements policies without exception — including in the case of Koopman.

Jeremy Myers and Great Western Salvage Ltd. filed in a lawsuit in 2009 for alleged constitutional right violations, initially naming Koopman, Hecker, then-Fort Collins Police Chief Dennis Harrison, former Larimer County Sheriff James Alderden, former 8th Judicial District Attorney Larry Abrahamson, the city of Loveland, the city of Fort Collins, Larimer County, the Board of County Commissioners and the 8th Judicial District Court as parties to the lawsuit.

Myers was accused of running a methamphetamine operation — until the substance obtained during a search was determined to be sugar. Charges were dropped.

“Given that number of named defendants, no one in this judicial district was asked to launch an internal investigation,” Hecker said.

Claims against most of the defendants were dismissed in 2010 and 2011, after which Myers amended his complaint, leaving Koopman as the only defendant. The case has now been sitting with the U.S. District Court for more than a year, with one remaining claim.

Former Loveland police officer Tammy Fisher filed a federal lawsuit this year against Koopman and Hecker for alleged constitutional right violations.

Hecker said it would not be appropriate to comment about the internal investigation process in this case because he is also listed as a defendant on Fisher’s lawsuit.

He did say, however, that an internal affairs investigation was conducted in relation to that case, but Koopman was not the subject of the investigation or the case itself. The investigation he said, focused “on the conduct of another employee and an ex-employee.”

The lawsuit states that while Koopman was investigating Loveland resident Stanley Romanek on suspicion of distribution and possession of child pornography, he combined his investigation with the claim of Lisa Romanek, the plaintiff’s wife, that Fisher tipped off the couple about the investigation a year before — when Fisher was still an employee of the department.

An investigation was also launched on former Sgt. Jeff Fisher, Tammy Fisher’s husband, who was an employee at the police department at the time, though the investigation was closed without disciplinary action.

As for the Weld County investigation of Koopman on allegations of perjury in connection to a Larimer County case, Hecker said he suspended the internal affairs investigation, pending the special prosecutor’s findings.

Cahill said the special prosecutor began investigating the case March 6, and city officials are awaiting its results before determining any next steps.

Anonymous reporting

The city has a contract with an anonymous reporting service called EthicsPoint, which costs about $1,000 a year, in which employees can report violations or complaints.

Employees can use an online reporting tool and correspond anonymously or talk to a person 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Human Resources Director Julia Holland said officials make sure to follow up and investigate the complaints, and if the employee creates an anonymous access code, officials can follow up with the employee as well.

When the HR department receives an anonymous letter, she said, officials respond in the same way — they follow up on the complaint and work with legal counsel depending on the complaint.

City Councilor Troy Krenning received an anonymous letter from a writer who claimed he or she is an employee of the police department, alleging evidence being destroyed in relation to Koopman’s cases among other claims, saying he or she feared retribution if he or she came forward openly.

Cahill said because the letter involves police, a third party investigator would look into the letter and its claims. The Larimer County District Attorney’s office was also contacted and it was determined that the letter should be handled by a third party, with follow up to the DA after the investigation is complete.

Saja Hindi: 970-669-5050 ext. 521, hindis@reporter-herald.com, twitter.com/SajaHindiRH.

Dana Rieck: 970-669-5050, ext. 630, rieckd@reporter-herald.com, twitter.com/DanaRieckRH.