Police chief's next step should be a resignation

By Dave Lieber
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

The time has come for North Richland Hills Police Chief Thomas Shockley to resign. I do not make this recommendation lightly. In fact, in nearly 10 years as an opinion writer for this newspaper, I cannot recall once asking a public official to step down.

But Star-Telegram staff writer Jennifer Autrey's Sunday article "Police kept tabs on lawyer suing over fatal raid" and my subsequent reporting this week point to an intolerable abuse of police power.

Officers spied on a lawyer as he attempted to gather evidence for his lawsuit against North Richland Hills. This is a transgression that, coupled with Shockley's own involvement, is justification for ending Shockley's 29-year police career.

Information about the surveillance came from testimony by several current and former police officers. One officer testified that the surveillance lasted for two weeks in early 2000 and consisted of four officers who worked on city time using city equipment, including recording devices and the Police Department's surveillance van.

Strangely, the officer later recanted his testimony, and city officials say this proves that the surveillance never occurred.

But other testimony shows how the police conducted surreptitious surveillance of lawyer Tom Carse of Dallas as he attempted to gather evidence for a lawsuit on behalf of the estate of Troy Davis, who was shot to death in a SWAT team raid in December 1999.

Shockley did not return my phone call.

Carse, who previously declined to comment, told me Thursday: "It's truly unfortunate how the actions of a few police officers can tarnish an entire agency."

North Richland Hills police killed Davis during a no-knock raid in which SWAT team members were looking for illegal drugs. Police said the 25-year-old son of true-crime writer Barbara Davis pointed a gun at officers and refused to drop it when ordered to do so.

North Richland Hills City Attorney George Staples denied in an interview with me that police spied on the lawyer. Rather, he said, they were conducting a legitimate investigation after receiving a tip that the lawyer had misidentified himself to witnesses as a police investigator and had flashed a badge. Staples said the investigation consisted only of one former officer who wore a wire while the lawyer interviewed him.

Yet testimony taken in depositions for the lawsuit -- including that of officer Rey Garza, who later recanted his testimony -- show that the operation was more extensive.

Garza, a 21-year Police Department veteran, testified that for at least two weeks he assisted four officers in following and monitoring Carse's activities in Arlington, Fort Worth and North Richland Hills. Garza said he asked whether the operation was proper, and police Detective Kevin Brown told him that they were following orders "from the top."

Twenty days later, Garza signed an affidavit that his testimony about top officials ordering the operation was "incorrect." And 22 days after that, Garza corrected a transcript of his deposition by signing another statement that included comments such as: "I did not know for sure;" "We did not follow anyone;" "I did not surveil Tom Carse;" and "I misspoke."

Staples told me, "We want the truth. We are not embarrassed by the fact that we didn't get it right the first time. If somebody makes a mistake in a deposition, I tell them, 'Look, if it's wrong, fix it. Make it right. Make it true.' "

I find it difficult to believe that the initial testimony by Garza, a former police detective, could be so wrong, especially when parts of it are verified in testimony by other officers, including Shockley himself. The Police Department faces a federal lawsuit brought by Barbara Davis challenging its decision to authorize the raid, how the raid was carried out, and events after the raid. In various aspects of the case, police personnel are telling different stories -- to the great embarrassment of the city and Northeast Tarrant County's largest police department. Two detectives who have offered statements that differ from the Police Department's stance have filed for whistleblower protection.

Shockley swore under oath that he knew about one aspect of the surveillance but was kept in the dark about other parts. He said police Detective Brown asked whether he could look into the allegations against the lawyer. "It was approved, but I did not direct him to" conduct surveillance, Shockley said, adding that he did not know if wiretapping was used, but he knew that oral conversations were recorded.

"I didn't know until after that was done, the basic number of officers that were out there," the police chief testified. "I mean, I couldn't even tell you who all was there today. I know in part who it was."

In a follow-up affidavit, Shockley signed a statement that after he reviewed a tape of the lawyer's conversations with a former police officer who wore a wire when talking to Carse, "I destroyed the tape recording."

To me, this is additional proof that this was a rogue operation: The Police Department never kept any of the gathered evidence and didn't bother to follow standard procedure and open a case file on the lawyer.

It appears that the police chief is seeking to use Brown as a scapegoat. "Those tapes and the surveillance of Mr. Carse were not authorized by me nor by anyone in the department other than possibly Kevin Brown," Shockley's statement said.

Brown has revealed that the Police Department improperly withheld documents that should have been made available to Davis' attorneys through the discovery process. As a result of Brown's disclosure, the federal judge handling the Davis case retracted his previous order that gave the police chief and other officers immunity from the lawsuit. Brown has been suspended from the Police Department and may lose his job. He was one of the two who filed for whistleblower protection.

Former police Detective Greg Stilley, who resigned last summer, testified in his December deposition that "Kevin was having direct communication with the chief simply off the order of the chief, that he wanted to be kept abreast of the entire investigation, so it was almost on a -- in watching from the outside in, almost on a daily basis or a very frequent basis, that he would have to go and update the chief on 'All right. This is what's going on, and here's where things are.' "

If this were a rogue operation without the police chief's full knowledge -- which I find hard to believe -- then Police Chief Shockley has indeed lost control of his department. If this were an authorized operation -- which I do believe -- the implications are even more frightening.

What is the Police Department trying to hide? Why did the police chief allow such an abuse of civil liberties? What message does this spying and the subsequent altering of police accounts send to all members of the North Richland Hills Police Department? Indeed, what message does it send to the entire community?

Police Chief Thomas Shockley has become an embarrassment to his city, and that is why he must resign.

Dave Lieber's Column Appears Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays.
(817) 685-3830 dlieber@star-telegram.com

Top