Michael Vagnini, who pleaded no contest to criminal charges resulting from the illegal searches, is serving a 26-month prison term. Credit: Mike De Sisti

SHARE

By of the

Two Milwaukee police officers who admitted they were present during invasive body cavity searches that led to felony convictions against a third officer were neither criminally charged nor fired from the department after making deals with prosecutors, according to court records.

One of the two officers, Michael Gasser, was on the scene during a 2010 search that caused the victim to bleed from his anus for several days, according to Gasser's deposition in a federal civil rights lawsuit.

Not only did Gasser avoid termination, he has been allowed to continue training rookie officers — even though he told internal investigators he didn't think there was anything wrong with the search, he testified in June.

The second officer, Zachary Thoms, admitted in a deposition that he and Officer Michael Vagnini coerced a suspect to try to defecate into a cardboard box at the District 5 police station in 2011, hoping he would expel hidden drugs.

Meanwhile, two supervisors who were in charge of District 5 while illegal searches were occurring there have been promoted to the highest levels of the department.

About 50 people have sued the city and the Police Department contending improper strip and cavity searches, which occurred between 2008 and 2012, violated their civil rights. More lawsuits are expected. The civil suits seek damages but do not list specific dollar amounts.

A similar spate of lawsuits in Chicago has cost that city's taxpayers more than $100 million.

Depositions in the civil cases show the problems within the Milwaukee Police Department that led to illegal searches persist, including inadequate training, failure to conduct independent internal investigations and lack of accountability for supervisors.

Vagnini pleaded no contest to four felonies and four misdemeanors as a result of the illegal searches and is serving a 26-month prison term. Three additional officers — Jeffrey Dollhopf, Brian Kozelek and Jacob Knight — pleaded no contest to misdemeanors. All four were forced to resign from the department.

Attorney Brendan Matthews, who represented Gasser, Thoms and other officers who assisted in the investigation and avoided discipline, said none of them knew it could be illegal for police to retrieve drugs from suspects' anal areas.

Both state law and Milwaukee Police Department policy prohibit officers from doing anal or vaginal cavity searches under any circumstances. Such searches can be performed only by a doctor, physician's assistant or registered nurse.

Strip searches — 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" — require written permission from either the police chief or a supervisor unless the officer expects to find a weapon.

"The fact of the matter is, on strip searches, the department has really failed these officers. They really didn't know, and that's a problem, and that's not the officers' fault," Matthews said. "The reality is, if no one told them, 'You can't do this,' or 'This isn't how you're supposed to do this,' how are they supposed to know?"

At a 2012 news conference, Police Chief Edward Flynn acknowledged the department had "a serious, serious training issue" when it came to strip and cavity searches. As a result, the department clarified its written policies on such searches and implemented additional training, which took place last year. Every sworn officer and supervisor was required to attend the 16-hour course, according to department spokesman Lt. Mark Stanmeyer.

But according to their depositions this year, Gasser and Thoms remain in the dark about the fact that Vagnini's searches were inappropriate.

Asked at his May deposition whether he had any concerns about a search in which Vagnini reached down the front of a suspect's pants on the street, Thoms replied: "Not even now because I believe he had probable cause to get the drugs out of his — out of wherever he was reaching."

During his deposition, which took place over two sessions, in March and June, Gasser rattled off the rules about proper searches. He testified that he had never witnessed another officer conduct either a strip search or a cavity search on the street.

But when Robin Shellow, attorney for several people who have sued the department, asked Gasser about the search that resulted in anal bleeding, the officer testified that he "didn't feel there was anything wrong with it," according to a transcript.

When internal investigators initially reviewed the search in 2010, they decided they did not have enough evidence to discipline any officers.

Two years later, after a lieutenant detected a pattern of problematic searches, police and prosecutors reinvestigated and determined the complaint was valid.

The incident began when Vagnini and Gasser stopped a man and demanded he turn over "the drugs." When the man insisted he didn't have any, Vagnini put him in a chokehold and "violently probed (the man) in his anus," according to a civil suit.

The man was arrested andsent to the House of Correction, where he complained to county corrections officers about the illegal search and his injuries.

Yet Gasser is among those mentoring a new generation of Milwaukee police officers.

As a field training officer, a position he has held since February 2012 — the month before the strip search investigation was made public — Gasser teaches officers how to patrol and is responsible for evaluating their performance.

One of Gasser's trainees was present for a portion of his deposition.

Asked why Gasser was allowed to continue serving as a training officer, Stanmeyer pointed out that Gasser had not been disciplined for involvement in strip searches.

Under the department's standard operating procedures, however, a training officer can be removed at the assistant chief's direction without discipline.

Not all officers disciplined

When an officer is suspected of illegal behavior, law enforcement agencies are supposed to conduct two separate investigations: the first to determine whether any officers broke the law; the second, to figure out whether any department rules were violated.

But in the strip search investigation, the only officers who have been disciplined more than two years later were those convicted of crimes, court records show.

At least nine additional officers who participated in improper searches or were present during those searches could have faced internal discipline for numerous department rule violations, including failing to intervene or failing to report the illegal searches to their bosses, according to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel review of thousands of pages of deposition transcripts and documents filed in the civil suits.

Stanmeyer said no other officers were disciplined because "evidence gathered as part of the internal investigation did not meet the standard to sustain (disciplinary) charges against other members."

Police and prosecutors often describe their investigations into wrongdoing by officers as "independent."

But in Thoms' case, his deal with prosecutors expressly included a promise he would not be disciplined, Chief Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern confirmed. Such agreements are "very rare," Lovern said, but this one was necessary to obtain convictions against Thoms' four fellow officers.

"An officer might be reluctant to give information to authorities that, while not necessarily criminal in nature, could result in the termination of his employment," Lovern said in an email.

Prosecutors did not know about the suspect who was instructed to defecate into the box until Thoms came forward with the information, Lovern said. Because the victim had a criminal record and would have lacked credibility with a jury, Thoms' testimony was needed to prove the case, according to the prosecutor.

During questioning by internal affairs, Thoms said he wasn't sure whether he or Vagnini brought in the box. Both of them threatened the man, telling him if he did not expel drugs from his anus, they would get a judge to authorize a strip search and he would go to prison, according to a summary of Thoms' statement to internal investigators.

No drugs were found.

Former officers Dollhopf and Kozelek witnessed the incident with the box but did not speak to the man or touch him. They were criminally charged with felony misconduct in office because they did nothing to stop the search and did not report it. Both reached deals with prosecutors, allowing them to plead no contest to misdemeanors if they agreed to leave the force.

Back on patrol

Thoms, meanwhile, was returned to street patrol in March.

The difference, Matthews said, is that Thoms told the truth.

"It was messed up," Matthews said. "But how many times do people see messed up things in their lives and they don't do anything about it? I know police officers are held to a different standard, but at the end of the day, they're just people."

Thoms remains under investigation by the Police Department regarding other matters, according to Matthews, who declined to give details.

"He's still not out of the woods in terms of internal discipline," Matthews said.

Thoms has faced other repercussions as well.

Vagnini sent Thoms texts calling him an expletive and a "snitch" and punched him in the face, according to deposition transcripts. Both of them claimed the texts and the punch had nothing to do with Thoms' cooperation, even though they occurred the same day Thoms received a written agreement from prosecutors.

Before the investigation started, another officer had asked Thoms to stand up in his wedding, but after Thoms' cooperation was made known, he was uninvited, Matthews said.

The way Thoms has been treated is proof the so-called blue wall of silence — in which department members who speak out against their fellow officers face harassment and ostracism — still exists in Milwaukee, according to Matthews.

"Quite literally, the guy has no friends on the department," the attorney said. "He has no friends; he's seen as a rat. That's very unfortunate because he's a really nice guy and all he did was tell the truth."

Supervisors promoted

None of the supervisors in charge of District 5 while the illegal searches were occurring was sanctioned by the department. Instead, two of them have since been promoted to Flynn'scommand staff.

Michael Brunson was District 5 watch commander during the period when officers were conducting illegal searches. He is now deputy inspector in charge of internal affairs, which investigates wrongdoing by officers.

At a deposition in May, Flynn called Brunson "a very effective supervisor."

He was "very well-respected in the organization, and he was respected in the community as well," Flynn testified.

Edith Hudson, who was the captain in charge of District 5, is now an assistant chief.

"She had been a very effective captain in District 5," Flynn said. "She had a measurable impact on crime. She also had very strong and productive relationships with the community. She was highly regarded by community leaders, and I believe she was highly qualified to rise to senior command."

In her deposition, Hudson described Vagnini as an "exemplary" officer. More than three times, she brought him to meetings with Flynn and other top department leaders, according to a transcript of her deposition.

"Officer Vagnini liked going," she testified. "He liked showcasing his knowledge, and he did a very good job."

Brunson and Hudson also didn't do anything to rein in Vagnini's immediate supervisor, Sgt. Jason Mucha, despite knowing for years about questionable behavior on his part.

Mucha, 35, was promoted to sergeant in 2005, after at least nine defendants in unrelated cases had accused him of beating them, planting drugs on them or both. A 10th man came forward after Mucha was promoted.

In a 2006 case, a panel of appeals court judges called Mucha's credibility into question, saying it was not in the interest of justice to take him at his word.

As a sergeant in District 5,Mucha consistently gave Vagnini positive performance reviews, calling him "one of the best officers in the department," according to court records.

Mucha has sinceretired on duty disability, claiming stress over investigations into his conduct and media coverage left him paranoid, depressed and suicidal. As a result, he will likely receive 75% of his $80,000 sergeant's salary for life. Because the payments are tax-free, his take-home pay is about the same as when he was working.

Hudson testified that she wasn't concerned about Mucha's judgment while he was supervising Vagnini and other officers implicated in illegal searchesbecause neither shenor Brunson witnessed questionable behavior on Mucha's part.

"Jason had not done anything, or nothing had been reported to me, that would have made me not trust his decision-making," she said.

In Matthews' opinion, Hudson took credit when the officers under her command got drugs off the streets, but faced no consequences when it turned out they were doing so in violation of the rules.

"She was kind of looking the other way when these guys were just killing it, and now it's like, all of the sudden, 'I didn't know that. I wasn't involved,'" Matthews said. "It's not very credible."

When attorney Flint Taylor, who represents several people suing the department, asked Flynn whether he re-evaluated the promotions of Hudson and Brunson after the illegal searches came to light, the chief said no.

"Something bad happened on their watch apparently," Flynn said during a deposition. "There is no indication anywhere that they had knowledge of it."

Taylor pressed him: "Even if they didn't have knowledge of it, isn't a supervisor who hears no evil, sees no evil, speaks no evil, isn't that something to take into account when evaluating whether to promote a person?"

"I don't know how to answer it," Flynn replied.