Chief should be fired to restore trust in police

Dave Lieber commentary

Two weeks ago in this space, I made a mistake when I recommended that North Richland Hills Police Chief Thomas Shockley fall on his sword and resign. Instead, after much thought and consideration of new information, I now firmly believe that City Manager Larry Cunningham, in consultation with the City Council, ought to fire him.

Shockley's Police Department is in disarray. Morale is rocky. The community is confused about the credibility of the department's leaders. And there are so many problems with Shockley's leadership that the city really has no choice but to start fresh.

Initially, I called for Shockley's resignation after revelations by Star-Telegram reporter Jennifer Autrey that Shockley approved a surveillance operation of a lawyer who was attempting to gather evidence for a lawsuit against North Richland Hills. Apparently, no records of the operation were kept. No case file was opened. The surveillance was an abuse of police authority.

Autrey's latest revelations this week in a Star-Telegram profile of Shockley show why it is incumbent upon city leaders to bring new leadership to Tarrant County's third-largest municipal police department.

Set aside information about the early days of Shockley's police career, when he was suspended by his department for firing his gun without cause and indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a charge later expunged from his record. Disregard, too, his departure from the Grapevine Police Department after he again was disciplined for firing his gun without cause. There, he was deemed an "unsatisfactory" employee ineligible to be rehired. Shockley, his city record in Grapevine stated, "creates problems within the ranks."

Those incidents, overshadowed as Shockley rose quickly through the ranks, are mere indicators of the troubles that have marked his four years as police chief in North Richland Hills.

As Autrey reported, the 1999 shooting death of Troy Davis during a SWAT team raid at his house is only one of several incidents that raise questions about Shockley's competency to serve as police chief.

The only one of eight finalists without a college degree, Shockley was selected as chief in 1998 by Cunningham, who recently told Autrey in an interview, "I expect he's going to be here a number of years."

Under Shockley's reign, a police officer exposed himself in a group photograph during a SWAT team training exercise, drawing a complaint from the lone female officer. Ann Shelton later sued the city for sexual harassment.

Was this an isolated incident? No. A second male officer, SWAT team supervisor Sgt. Andy Wallace, rappelled down a wall nude after the training exercise, according to evidence in the Davis case. City Attorney George Staples said that no rules were broken and that "boys will be boys."

Those incidents indicate that Shockley's Police Department is not the most professional operation.

This lack of professionalism showed itself in another strange way. Evidence photos taken at the scene of the Davis shooting showed Shelton's nametag in several places in the Davis house, including next to spent bullet casings. Shelton was no longer with the department, so what was her nametag doing at the crime scene?

Shockley never ordered an investigation, and the mystery nameplate was never explained. But the incident raises questions of crime-scene contamination because apparently an outside element was introduced.

In another example of SWAT team problems under Shockley's watch, the city recently paid more than $50,000 to settle a lawsuit that said SWAT team members, under Wallace's leadership, conducted an improper search. According to the lawsuit, police inappropriately ordered a woman to show her breasts. Police denied that they conducted such a search.

However, U.S. District Judge Terry Means ruled, "The court concludes that no reasonable officer in Wallace's position would have thought that such a search was permissible."

Autrey also reported that a police detective told attorneys in the Davis case that Shockley wanted the Drug Enforcement Administration to investigate his pharmacist, who had supposedly shorted Shockley eight to 10 painkillers in the past year. Shockley testified in a deposition that he didn't remember making such a request.

Pain medication proved to be a problem for Shockley in March, when Shockley called his department's 911 dispatcher late one night and reported that an armed woman was on his porch. Officers arrived and found Shockley standing alone outside holding a loaded gun.

Officers said later that Shockley believed that Shelton was standing outside his house that night. Shockley testified in a deposition in the Davis case that he suffered that night from an adverse reaction to pain medication he was taking after having surgery. Lawyers say there are no Police Department records of the incident.

Add to this the highly questionable recanting of an officer's initial detailed testimony of the police spying operation, and you see a department that cannot keep its stories straight. Shockley's Police Department is so actively engaged in protecting itself that one wonders how it can protect the city.

A police chief's true job, I believe, is to provide the leadership that ensures the department runs correctly. Shockley is so hamstrung by all that has happened -- and all that could happen -- in the Davis lawsuit, that I don't believe he can do his job anymore.

That became evident Wednesday night during a six-hour Civil Service Commission hearing of a police officer whom Shockley fired after an investigation found the officer had sexual encounters on his lunch break and lied to his supervisors.

Shockley testified that he knew one of his detectives, a veteran who has filed for whistle-blower protection, had written a complaint letter. The letter stated that a lieutenant warned SWAT team members that if they supported the whistle-blower detective they would be kicked off the SWAT team.

"Yes, I'm aware of the letter," Shockley said.

A lawyer asked Shockley if he investigated the incident.

"No," Shockley answered.

Why not?

He conducted no investigation, Shockley said, "on the advice of counsel."

"Counsel tells you whom to investigate?" the lawyer asked.

"No, sir," Shockley said, adding, "We would constantly be investigating every rumor in the agency. I don't think that's productive."

The truth -- and Shockley's boss, City Manager Cunningham, has a responsibility to his city to know this -- is that it is necessary to investigate all rumors of misconduct. How else will the city get to the truth? How else can North Richland Hills set strong ethical standards?

So I was wrong in my request for Shockley's resignation. The only way now to save the reputation of the city's finest is for city leaders to order Shockley's immediate termination.

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

Top