After the article was published, the first message Pichardo received came from another police officer.
“I want to congratulate you on the strength of your testicles,” the officer wrote. He added that he was proud of Pichardo for doing what he believed was right. Then he issued a warning: “The brass were furious.”
Pichardo said many officers supported the statements he made to the Valley Breeze. Others, primarily senior officers, viewed him as a traitor. One officer asked why he was still on the job. Officers at the station reportedly began referring to the matter in private as “Valley Breeze.” One sergeant even told him, “You should resign,” Pichardo said.
Within weeks, those warnings began to appear prescient.
Police internal investigation An internal police investigation is not a criminal case. Its purpose is generally narrower: to determine whether an officer violated department policy, a code of conduct, or a general order. Investigators may interview witnesses, review body-camera and surveillance footage, collect reports and emails, and question the officer involved. Interviews are typically recorded, and officers are often accompanied by a union representative.
The process generates extensive paperwork, including the initial complaint, a notice of investigation, a list of potential policy violations, interview transcripts, investigator notes, investigative findings, disciplinary recommendations, and notice of any discipline imposed.
Before the Valley Breeze article was published, Pichardo’s disciplinary record appeared to consist of a single incident. In 2021, while working as a police officer at a performance of Annie, he received a written reprimand and a two-week suspension after refusing a vendor’s request to wear a mask. On Oct. 25, 2023, Pichardo received notice of an internal investigation into comments he made about Flock surveillance cameras. It would be the first of several investigations.
A police complaint filed by Police Chief Tina Gonsalves alleged that Pichardo spoke with a newspaper without prior authorization, undermined the authority of the police department and its chief, and suggested that information collected by Flock cameras may have been misused. The notice stated that his comments “may harm the department’s reputation and impact the community.”
The potential violations included the department’s mission statement, its code of ethics, its media-relations policy, and a rule titled “Criticism and Malicious Gossip.”
Pichardo was ordered to report to the Office of Professional Standards in the basement of Pawtucket Police Headquarters. A lieutenant and a sergeant sat across from him, he said, while a union representative sat beside him but said little.
The interview lasted approximately 30 to 45 minutes, Pichardo recalled. The initial questions were straightforward: Had he spoken with reporters? Had he done so without the department’s permission? And why?
Pichardo gave investigators essentially the same explanation he had given the newspaper. Surveillance cameras were tracking people throughout the city, he said, and the public had a right to know how the technology was being used. Pichardo said the lieutenant disagreed, arguing that not every police tactic was a matter of public concern. The department had not disclosed all of the methods it used or every form of surveillance available, the lieutenant told him.
Source: www.wired.com