Friday, November 6, 2026
Good morning, {{first_name|colleague}}.
This week's lead is the case every IA unit hopes it never has: the person under investigation ended up with the investigator in handcuffs. The Sixth Circuit just ruled that a jury can decide why. It's a hard lesson in what happens when nothing separates the person being investigated from the people investigating him.
In today's brief:
Case Law: Chief under review, investigator under arrest
Technology/AI: Who defends an AI-drafted report?
HR: Toledo harassment findings meet due process
You Make the Call: The subject wants to charge your investigator.
INTEL BY THE NUMBERS
36 hours
Time the outside HR consultant spent in jail before the charges were dismissed (6th Cir., McDowell v. Pomesky)
90 days
Recommended period for supervisors to check AI-drafted reports against body-camera footage (Police1, IACP 2026)
7
Former Dade Correctional Institution officers sentenced in an inmate beating and cover-up (Miami Herald via Corrections1)
CASE LAW / RETALIATION
The Chief Was the Subject. Then He Had the Investigator Arrested.
In summer 2022, Perry Township, Ohio, hired an outside HR consultant to review its practices, including complaints about how the police chief ran his department. Before the review was finished, the consultant was in jail on a warrant the chief had sought. On Oct. 26, the Sixth Circuit ruled that a jury can decide whether that was law enforcement or payback.
What happened (the facts as the court viewed them, in the plaintiff's favor at summary judgment):
Employees told consultant Dyann McDowell they feared retaliation from the chief. According to the opinion, Chief Michael Pomesky watched from a maintenance garage as employees arrived for interviews, then opened an investigation into the employee who told McDowell he was there.
After Pomesky suggested he knew where she lived, McDowell falsely told him she had received a LEADS notification that someone had run her information. He investigated, found no such query, and a prosecutor agreed there was probable cause for misdemeanor falsification and obstruction.
Pomesky sought an arrest warrant instead of a summons. The court described that as a departure from department practice and from the written arrest policy. McDowell spent 36 hours in jail, and the charges were dismissed. The township placed Pomesky on leave and later fired him.
Why it matters: The appeal was narrow. It decided only Ohio statutory immunity (Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.03(A)(6)), not federal qualified immunity, and whether Pomesky is liable is still undecided. But the panel rejected the argument that probable cause alone guarantees immunity. Lawful process used for a dishonest purpose can still be bad faith, and departures from policy are the evidence a jury can use to find it. Sooner or later, every IA unit investigates someone with the power to retaliate.
The IA play:
Give investigators and witnesses a way to report threats that doesn't go through the subject. If they are watched, followed, or threatened, the report goes to someone outside the subject's chain of command. Why: the person under investigation should not control complaints about his own conduct.
Keep the subject from taking official action against anyone involved in the case. Any criminal or administrative action the subject starts against a complainant, witness, or investigator goes to an independent decision-maker. Why: even a valid charge looks like retaliation when the subject brings it.
Document every departure from routine. If an action involving someone in the case departs from normal practice, the file should show who approved it and why. Why: in this case, unexplained departures from policy supported the inference of bad faith.
Hold your own investigators to the same standard. McDowell's false statement gave the chief his opening. Why: an investigator's mistake becomes the subject's defense.
Protect the subject's rights too. A subject accused of retaliation still gets notice, a chance to respond, and an impartial decision-maker. Why: discipline built on shortcuts won't hold up on appeal.
Florida note: If the subject is an officer covered by Fla. Stat. § 112.532, his rights during the investigation still apply. Protecting the people involved in a case does not suspend them.
Bottom line: The person under investigation should never decide what happens to the people investigating him.
Source: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, McDowell v. Pomesky, No. 26-3027 (not recommended for publication), Oct. 26, 2026.
TECHNOLOGY / AI
AI Can Draft the Report. Your Officer Still Has to Defend It.
At the IACP conference in Orlando, Eric Atstupenas, general counsel to the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, warned that when an AI-drafted report is challenged, the officer testifies, not the software. Prosecutors may set the rules before courts do. Connecticut prosecutors have imposed a moratorium on AI-drafted criminal reports, and King County, Wash., prosecutors said in 2024 they wouldn't accept them. In California, Penal Code § 13663, in effect since Jan. 1, 2026, requires disclosure that AI was used, the officer's signed verification, and retention of the first AI draft and an audit trail.
He also warned about "shadow AI," meaning officers who use consumer chatbots on their own. He urged agencies to name one person responsible for oversight and to compare sample reports against source footage for the first 90 days.
Zoom out: In an untruthfulness case, IA will increasingly need to ask what the officer accepted as written, not just what the officer typed. Make sure your policy says who owns every sentence and that drafts are kept where your investigators can get them.
HR / WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS
Toledo's Deputy Fire Chief Case Tests the Handoff From HR Findings to Discipline
Toledo Fire & Rescue Deputy Chief Danny Brown-Martinez is on paid administrative leave. 13abc reported on Nov. 4 that two investigations substantiated harassment allegations against him, including repeated sexual comments at work. A city HR investigation recommended discipline and a review of policy violations under the collective bargaining agreement. A second recommended discipline and consideration of permanent reassignment. A disciplinary hearing began this week and is set to continue. His attorney says no decision has been made and points to nearly 30 years of service with no prior discipline. He also raises due process concerns, including that the allegations came up while Brown-Martinez was on medical leave and that the fire chief has not attended the proceedings.
The takeaway: When the subject outranks nearly everyone, expect the defense to attack the process, so make sure your file shows notice, a real chance to respond, and a decision-maker who did not investigate the case.
Around the Beat
Quick hits from across public safety, one sentence each, linked to the source.
Police (Canada): Montreal's police chief fired seven officers after an internal disciplinary investigation into alleged racist and discriminatory conduct; criminal probes continue, and the police union says it will contest the firings. (CBC)
Fire/EMS: Three Nashville firefighters resigned during a misconduct investigation after a police report said they ordered drinks at a Broadway bar while on duty. (WSMV)
Corrections (Florida): Seven former officers at Dade Correctional Institution were sentenced after no-contest pleas tied to the beating of a handcuffed inmate in a holding area out of camera view; a lieutenant pleaded no contest to tampering with evidence. (Corrections1)
HR & Employment Law: A former paramedic's lawsuit against Colorado's Platteville-Gilcrest Fire Protection District, moved to federal court Nov. 2, alleges the district accepted the fire chief's explanation of her harassment complaint without discipline, while a lieutenant she reported was suspended. (Fire Law Blog)
Questions IA Commanders Should Ask
If the subject of an open case watched, followed, or threatened one of your investigators, who would the investigator tell, and is that person outside the subject's chain of command?
Does your policy require independent review before the subject can take official action against a complainant, witness, or investigator?
When you give a case involving a senior leader to a new investigator, who checks in with them each week? When you give it to a veteran, who asks whether they've already decided how it ends?
Intel Picks
Worth your time this week.
Read: The Sixth Circuit's opinion in McDowell v. Pomesky. It's short, and it lays out exactly which evidence a jury can use to infer bad faith.
Use: The five steps in this week's lead, as a checklist for the next case where the subject outranks your investigator.
Train: IA and HR training for investigators and commanders who handle cases involving their own leadership.
You Make the Call
Hypothetical scenario. Your county hires an outside investigator to look into complaints about a corrections captain. Partway through, the captain reports that the investigator lied about a prior employer on a vendor form, and he wants to refer it to the sheriff's office for a falsification charge. You check, and the statement does appear to be false. What do you do?
A) Let the captain's referral go forward. The statement was false, and probable cause is probable cause.
B) Ignore it. The investigator is protecting the process, and the complaint is obviously retaliation.
C) Send the allegation to someone independent of the captain, document it, and decide separately whether it affects the investigation or the investigator's assignment.
D) Stop the investigation until the investigator's conduct is fully resolved.
Answer at the bottom of this email.
Leadership Takeaway
Sooner or later, every IA unit investigates someone with the power to retaliate. Set up the separation between the subject and the investigation before the case is opened, not after something goes wrong.
If your agency doesn't yet have a plan for investigating its own command staff, check out the national IA and HR training available from one of our trusted partners.
Know an investigator, supervisor, or HR partner who should be reading this? Forward your personal link to your team. When 3 colleagues sign up and confirm, you'll receive the free IA Case Launch Kit.
You've referred {{rp_num_referrals}} colleagues so far. Your link: {{rp_refer_url}}
You Make the Call — Answer: C. Option A feels right because the allegation is true, but McDowell shows that even a charge backed by probable cause can support a finding of bad faith when the subject is the one pursuing it. The issue is who is driving it. Option B ignores a real integrity problem that could undermine your findings later, and Option D gives the subject a way to stall the case. Independent review protects the investigation, the investigator, and the captain's right to a fair process.
Sources & Case Law Referenced
McDowell v. Pomesky, No. 26-3027 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 2026) (not recommended for publication)
Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.03 (Ohio state law)
Fla. Stat. § 112.532 (Florida state law)
Until next week,
George A. Perez
Assistant Director (Ret.), Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office
The Internal Affairs Intel Report
