The Saga of Oakland Police Sergeant Derwin Longmire, Part Two

**Part one of this article appeared in the April issue of the PORAC News Magazine

The Flawed and Dishonest Internal Investigation

As I waded through mounds of investigative reports and supporting documents, it became clear to me that the Department’s initial IA investigation, as well as the subsequent DOJ investigation, had largely tracked the irresponsible media claims by the Bailey Project and other hanger-on reporters who took great delight in excoriating Derwin directly and the OPD indirectly. Clearly, in my mind, the acting chief of police (current chief) had succumbed to media pressure in connection with this matter. No sooner had Derwin received the written Notice of Intent to Terminate when he and I began receiving telephone calls from media representatives asking us if we were going to comment on his proposed termination. The trickle of information going through the information sieve created and fueled by OPD management to the media, which we had seen in the past, became an information flood when Derwin Longmire faced termination. The media was reporting information before we heard about it.

As we dug through the various documents which had been provided, we also realized that other things had not been provided. There was an initial interview conducted by an OPD IA investigator which would have, in my opinion, demonstrated that the OPD had violated the one-year timeline contained in the Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights Act to complete its investigation of his case. When I asked that investigator why I had not been provided with the interview of a witness claiming that Derwin and another OPD investigator beat the murder confession out of Devaughndre Broussard, the investigator stated that after the interview was conducted it had been placed on the Department’s server and that he would obtain it for us. When he accessed the server, it was inexplicably absent/erased. When I requested that the IA commander (now acting deputy police chief) obtain the interview, it continued to be inexplicably erased and unavailable. I never got it.

I found out in interviewing an additional witness that he had previously given a taped interview to Pete France and had provided exculpatory information pertaining to Sergeant Longmire. That witness interview was never reported in Mr. France’s written report, nor were we ever provided a tape-recording of the interview. I cried foul and was largely ignored.

The OPD had accused Derwin of canceling a want on another suspect in the Bailey murder (Antoine Mackey), ostensibly to avoid that suspect implicating Bey IV. Yet, the Department had not supplied us with a copy of the want which had been issued by a fellow Homicide detective. When we were finally able to obtain the want on our own initiative, we determined that the want was unrelated to the Bailey murder altogether, but involved another criminal case. The Department had completely misrepresented this allegation as a basis to terminate Longmire.

Notably, the primary allegation against Derwin was “compromising” the murder investigation of Bailey by taking steps to actively avoid implicating him in the murder. Yet, in an affidavit prepared by Derwin in support of the issuance of a search warrant shortly after the murder Derwin made the following statement:

I believe that Broussard killed Mr. Bailey, as he indicated during the interview. I further believe that Yusef Bey IV may be complicit in the killing of Mr. Bailey by utilizing his personal cellular phone listed on the front of this affidavit. I also believe that Yusef Bey IV made attempts to establish plausible deniability by granting television interviews and misleading investigators during criminal interviews. Additionally, I believe that Yusef Bey IV, Antoine Mackey, and Devaughndre Broussard made an attempt to kill Mr. Bailey on August 1, when the three of them drove around Mr. Bailey’s residence at International Boulevard and First Avenue.

Significantly, when Lieutenant Joyner had been interviewed by DOJ investigators concerning this matter, he provided them a tape-recording of a telephone call he had received from Assistant Alameda District Attorney (now Judge) Thomas Rogers. During the telephone call, Mr. Rogers described Sergeant Longmire as being extremely professional and stated that Longmire had done a great job in the interview of Broussard and that he did not believe that Broussard would have confessed except for the efforts of Longmire. Mr. Rogers was, at that time, a supervisor overseeing the criminal charging of Bey IV and other Black Muslim Bakery members for a variety of criminal offenses that had been committed shortly before the murder of Bailey.

Despite having Mr. Rogers’ recorded voicemail message that Longmire had not “compromised” the murder investigation of Chauncey Bailey, no one from the OPD or from the DOJ contacted either Mr. Rogers or Deputy D.A. Chris Lamiero, who was directly assigned to oversee the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for Bailey’s murder.

In preparation for Derwin’s Skelly hearing, our investigator interviewed both Mr. Lamiero and Mr. Rogers, both of whom indicated that Derwin had expressed his beliefs very early in the investigation that Bey IV had ordered Broussard to kill Bailey and had provided them information all along about Bey’s probable involvement in the murder. During his interview, Mr. Rogers stated the following: “Derwin deserves credit for getting the confession from Broussard. He has not been given credit for obtaining the confession. As it turned out, we used Broussard to charge Bey IV.”

Rogers also stated, when interviewed, that “Derwin was definitely trying to get Bey IV on the Bailey homicide. Longmire believed that Bey IV and Mackey were suspects in the Bailey homicide along with Broussard. Derwin believed that Bey IV “set up the Bailey homicide” even though “the question was trying to prove it.” Rogers insisted that “Derwin did not actively minimize or conceal the potential involvement of Bey IV or the bakery in the Bailey homicide to prevent Bey from being charged in the murder.”

D.D.A. Lamiero also told our investigator that after speaking to Derwin very early on about the murder, it was “[Longmire’s] opinion that Bey IV gave the order to kill Bailey. Derwin never said he thought Bey was not involved.” As to Derwin’s interview of Broussard which resulted in his confession, Lamiero described it as “a bold decision, the right decision, the right call. … It was definitely outside-the-box thinking.”

The Skelly Hearing

On July 9, 2009, Derwin and I appeared at a Skelly hearing before a police captain (now the OPD assistant police chief). We were armed with a 60-page (typewritten) Pre-Disciplinary Response and a slew of exhibits in a packet almost 2-inches thick. Not only did we disprove at the Skelly hearing the Police Department’s claim that Longmire had taken measures to avoid implicating Bey IV in the Bailey murder, but we also addressed the “motive” asserted by the Department for Longmire to engage in such unethical behavior. That “motive” was, of course, Longmire’s supposed longstanding friendship with Bey IV and his sympathy for the bakery and its members.

The (then) acting police chief (and now chief), for instance, claimed in an interview that he had believed that Derwin was, or is, “associated” with the bakery, citing Longmire’s “visits to the jail” (to see Bey) and “his phone calls to Bey while he’s still in custody.” In fact, Longmire had made only one visit to the jail and had made no phone calls to Bey while he was in custody, even though Bey had called Longmire. The chief also claimed that Longmire considered himself a “mentor” for Bey IV, stating “that’s what I’ve been told, that’s what’s been told to me by other people that are credible within the organization.” Not a single other employee claimed to have provided that information to the chief and there was no source for his belief ever cited.

Next, the acting chief claimed that Longmire had approved the bakery to post his photograph on an Internet website of the bakery. In truth, Longmire had not authorized anyone from the bakery to put his photograph on the website. Instead, the bakery had taken a photograph of Longmire, which was printed on the front page of the newspaper, and put it on the website without asking Longmire or obtaining his permission.

The acting chief also claimed that “there’s always been rumors and innuendos about [Longmire’s] association, although not official, with the bakery.” The chief further explained that those “rumors and innuendos” resulted because Derwin “wears a bowtie and a suit. As you know, people draw their own inference.” As we pointed out, at one point, while assigned to Investigations, Longmire had on occasions worn bowties instead of regular ties with his suit, as had other Oakland police officers, both white and black. In fact, as Derwin had explained during his interview with the DOJ, he had worn a bowtie on several occasions because he liked the look and was aware it annoyed one old-time detective.

When all was said and done, the most significant “evidence” of Derwin’s “association” with the bakery came from an officer in the OPD Intelligence Unit who told investigators that he had been investigating the bakery for over a decade. He claimed that his “specialty” was possessing information concerning the bakery. Yet, the information he possessed about Derwin’s “association” with the bakery came down to this: “… I have some informants that I’ve had in the bakery and have asked me about [Longmire] by name. I knew previously, when he worked North Oakland Patrol, he and [another OPD officer] worked that North Oakland area and they frequented the bakery with, you know, buying lunch. …”

Thus, not only did the Department’s assertion that Longmire had somehow “compromised” the Bailey murder investigation by failing to implicate Bey IV fizzle and fail, but its effort to ascribe a plausible “motive” for Derwin to engage in such unethical behavior had absolutely no basis in fact, but was rooted in unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo.

The (then) police captain who conducted the Skelly hearing listened stoically but paid close attention. I had known him for years and believed that presented with all the facts, he would be fair, but at the same time, I understood the media attention given to this case and the pressure the Department command was under from attacks on Derwin by the Bailey Project and other reporters.

After the Skelly hearing concluded, Derwin returned to the paid administrative leave status he had been on since April 13 for roughly six more months. One day, in October 2009, I received a telephone call from the then-IA commander (now deputy chief). He advised me during that telephone call that the Department had made the decision to return Derwin to work, but advised me that he needed to be demoted from sergeant to officer. I questioned what Derwin had done to warrant a demotion, let alone a suspension in connection with his investigation of the Bailey murder. I never got a clear answer. The IA commander reminded me that Derwin also had another pending IA investigation for failing to complete steps on some of his other homicide cases. I advised him that Derwin had been singled out for different treatment from any other former Homicide investigator who had been transferred from the Unit, and that his failure to complete those steps warranted a written reprimand or, at the very most, a day or two on the beach. I told the IA commander that I would not even recommend to Sergeant Longmire that he agree to a demotion, and told him to take his best shot or come back with another proposal.

Over the next several weeks, I engaged in additional phone calls with the IA commander, who advised me that if Derwin would not take a demotion the Department needed to suspend him for 90 days. After receiving my vitriolic response, there was another call proposing 60 days, and still another proposing 45 days, although I could never get the IA commander to tell me whether the discipline was being imposed for the Chauncey Bailey murder investigation or for Derwin’s alleged failure to complete steps on some of his pending homicide investigations.

After a series of contentious discussions, the IA commander proposed that Derwin be suspended for five days for failing to complete the various steps in the homicide investigations and that none of the disciplines would be imposed for his actions in investigating the murder of Chauncey Bailey. When we objected to the five-day suspension, the Department imposed 20 days, which we promptly appealed and are waiting for arbitration.

Longmire Sues the Department — Startling Revelations About the Department’s Requested Demotion

Ultimately, Derwin returned to work in Patrol as a Police Sergeant. He filed a civil action against the Department for its handling of his investigation and proposed termination relating to the Chauncey Bailey murder investigation. When his lawyer took the deposition of the former IA commander who had tried to negotiate Derwin’s initial demotion and several lengthy suspensions, the IA commander provided a couple of startling revelations in his sworn deposition testimony.

First, he said that before the acting chief proposed to terminate Derwin the IA commander told him that the findings which had been sustained by the DOJ did not appear to him to be well-supported by any documentation. The chief proposed termination anyway.

Second, he testified that soon after our July 9, 2009, Skelly hearing with the police captain, the captain had determined that all the allegations against Derwin in connection with the Chauncey Bailey murder investigation were not sustained and could not form the basis of any disciplinary action whatsoever. The captain (now assistant chief) had apparently convinced the acting chief (now chief) not to sustain the case against Derwin for compromising the investigation of the murder investigation of Chauncey Bailey. Despite this, the acting chief had told the IA commander to telephone me and convince me to agree to demote Derwin from sergeant to officer but to avoid telling me that the Department had not sustained the allegations in connection with the Bailey murder investigation.

Clearly, the Department management was hoping that I would agree to a substantial disciplinary penalty of Derwin (demotion, 90-day suspension, etc.) which would probably be leaked to the press as if to say that the Department had determined (much like the Chauncey Bailey Project and the other reprehensible reporters who followed its misleading lead) that Longmire had engaged in serious misconduct in connection with the Bailey investigation, even though it had backed off its proposed termination. By doing this, the Department would not have to face the prospect of explaining why it had retreated from a proposed termination to no disciplinary action whatsoever to the highly interested media members to whom information had been freely leaked when Longmire was facing termination.

The Trial of Bey and Broussard for Bailey’s Murder

Bey IV was ultimately charged with the murder of Chauncey Bailey, and Devaughndre Broussard, who confessed his involvement in the murder to Derwin Longmire, became the prosecution’s star witness. Derwin also testified at the trial on behalf of the prosecution, and there was not even the slightest suggestion by a prosecution or defense lawyer in the trial that Longmire’s investigation had been faulty, or that he had a relationship with Bey IV other than that of investigating officer and suspect. The jury quickly convicted Bey of Bailey’s murder.

In 2003, when the prosecution was completing its case in chief in the first trial of three officers who were called the “Oakland Riders,” the City of Oakland and plaintiff’s lawyers settled a civil suit filed against the officers and Department. The settlement was embodied in a document which has come to be known as the Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA). The NSA had a number of objectives, one of which was to improve the objectivity and integrity of IA investigations and decision-making by Department management on disciplinary matters. In this case, four years after agreeing to improve disciplinary investigations, the Department demonstrated a complete indifference to objectivity and an arrogant refusal, to tell the truth — to the public and to Derwin Longmire. It concealed evidence, it withheld exculpatory information and it actively misrepresented facts in an effort to destroy Derwin Longmire’s career.

The sad saga of the Oakland Police Department’s attempt to end the stellar career of Derwin Longmire is both a massive failure of objectivity and integrity and an undeniable demonstration that placating irresponsible and misleading media reporting became more important than a spirited and factual defense of an incredibly gifted and committed Homicide Investigator.

About the Author

Mike Rains is a Principal and Founding Member of Rains Lucia Stern. He heads the firm’s Criminal Defense and Legal Defense of Peace Officers Practice Groups.