LITTLE ROCK — A Little Rock police officer who shot and killed a 15-year-old last month had a history of “poor decision-making” and “unprofessionalism,” according to complaints made by a department supervisor.
Officer Josh Hastings, who has remained on paid leave since the Aug. 12 shooting, has been suspended six times in his five-year career.
The shooting occurred while Hastings was investigating a report of someone breaking into cars at an apartment-complex parking lot. Hastings opened fire on a Honda Civic that he told detectives “speed[ed] towards him” and caused him to “fear for his life.”
The shots killed Bobby Moore, who was facing prosecution as an adult in a June 24 carjacking.
Moore was the fourth person killed by Little Rock officers this year, and his death remains under investigation by both homicide and internal-affairs detectives.
The fatal police shooting of an armed man on his porch just two days before Moore’s death also remains under investigation.
Officers James Anderson and Matthew Hoffine, who police said killed Donald O’Fallon after the 43-year old man pointed a handgun toward officers, returned to work less than a week after the Aug. 10 shooting.
Those officers were the subject of 11 departmental complaints dating back to 2007.
One of those complaints resulted in a one-day suspension for Hoffine, who failed to secure evidence when he left a backpack containing marijuana on his car and drove off.
Hastings accumulated 18 internal complaints since joining the department in 2007, at least six of which were sustained, resulting in 34 days of missed work spread over six suspensions, department records show.
Departmental administrative documents show that Hastings violated department policies regarding reporting crime, using recording equipment and excessive speeding.
Supervisors also complained that the patrol officer was insubordinate, showed a “reckless” disregard for public safety, damaged department property, used profanity, missed court dates, slept on the job and lied to other officers, according to documents obtained by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette through the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
The internal investigations also alluded to other complaints that had been sustained: five orders for counseling, two oral reprimands and six written reprimands.
The newspaper couldn’t determine which complaints Hastings received the less severe disciplinary actions on, because oral reprimands, orders for counseling and written reprimands are not releasable to the public, department spokesman Sgt. Cassandra Davis said.
Police Chief Stuart Thomas wouldn’t comment on the investigations, but said the officer’s disciplinary record is “on the higher end” of the department’s discipline spectrum.
Davis said an officer’s background is a key part of an internal investigation but would not comment specifically about Hastings.
Thomas said a high volume of complaints and subsequent suspensions doesn’t necessarily mean an officer isn’t a good officer. It may mean the officer merely requires more “corrective action” from command staff and more training.
“We’ve had officers over the years who’ve accumulated a variety of discipline issues and, ultimately, the administration has to make a determination, ‘Is the employee salvageable or not?’” Thomas said. “I’ve had officers ... accumulate 80 or 90 days of suspension.
“You look at the individual circumstances, the severity. You try to do some measure that will correct the behavior. If it doesn’t ... you do what you have to.”
With roughly 500 officers, the department’s internal-affairs division counted 124 complaints last year, of which 61 - roughly half - were sustained.
In 2010, there were 123 such complaints, and again 61 were sustained by command staff.
The department instituted an Early Intervention System meant to identify problem employees and prevent a “serious case of misconduct” that “reveals an escalating pattern of misconduct that could have been abated by earlier intervention,” according to the department’s general orders.
The system requires that internal investigators conduct an overall analysis of employees. The investigators, along with the chain of command, can recommend more training, therapy, reassignment or transfer, among other steps, to improve officers’ performance.
The system “will be automatically activated” for an employee when the employee is subject to, among other things, “two or more sustained internal or divisional investigations,” the policy states.
Although Hastings was suspended twice as the result of sustained investigations in 2010 and 2011, Davis, the department spokesman, said command staff members didn’t think criticisms of Hastings’ work warranted activation of the Early Intervention System.
“[Command staff members] feel his complaints ... fell below the [threshold] for early intervention, though it doesn’t relieve [an officer’s] supervisors of voicing concerns” she said. “They feel we’ve addressed [performance] concerns with the disciplines he received.”
Thomas said that Hastings’ history qualified him for the Early Intervention System and that he may not have been enrolled because of changing qualifications and software issues with the system.
Enrolled or not, command staff members and supervisors are fully aware of officers with discipline issues, Thomas said, and those officers are monitored by their immediate supervisors all the way up to the chief’s desk.
Throughout administrative hearings for his six suspensions, Hastings apologized to supervisors, stating that he had learned from his mistakes and that he was “taking measures now to make sure that this will not happen again in the future,” files said.
In 2008, Hastings received a one-day suspension for failing to forward paperwork and investigative documents to others in the department, as well as releasing a burglary suspect at the scene to which he responded.
According to investigators, the internal complaint was filed after Demario Hervey, accompanied by his attorney,surrendered to police that August regarding warrants sought in a July 4 burglary at 2213 S. Martin St.
Hastings said he released one man at the scene, and two other suspects ran away.
Hervey was identified as a suspect because Hastings found Hervey’s personal identification in a car at the scene. But that card had been stolen more than a year before in an armed robbery in which Hervey was shot in the hip.
Hervey had used a wheelchair since 1998 and would have been unable to walk, let alone run, from Hastings had he been at the burglary scene.
Hastings received another one-day suspension in 2010 after he wrecked his squad car on Interstate 30 when he lost control of it on a wet roadway. Hastings said he was driving at or under the speed limit, although investigators determined he was driving 87 mph and not “60 to 65 mph.”
That same year, Hastings was handed a 10-day suspension for careless driving, refusal to obey lawful orders, failing to check out department property and failing to patrol his assigned district.
Hastings was on patrol in the eastern parts of Little Rock and neglected a nearby assistance call on the night of July 2, according to investigators.
Hastings left his patrol district unattended when, after hearing a call that Arkansas State Police were pursuing a man shooting at troopers, he drove to west Little Rock via the interstate without notifying dispatchers, reports said.
Hastings did not turn on his emergency lights, supervisors wrote, and hit speeds as high as 123 mph. He was “reckless ... negligent ... show[ed] a complete disregard to safety and human life,” according to the report.
“He also completely disregards [his supervisor’s] orders to slow down” for a call that already had plenty of officers involved.
Minutes later, Hastings received a call to back up an officer on South Rock Street. Hastings lied about his location, doubled back across Interstate 630 at speeds as high as 119 mph, was late to the call and lied to the officer about where he had been, according to reports.
Hastings “chose to lie,” his supervisor wrote. “He put [the other officer] in an unsafe situation ... because her backup was too far away.”
The supervisor wrote that he was “extremely disappointed” in Hastings’ behavior and “decision-making,” noting: “I don’t doubt [Hastings’] apology is genuine; however, I have heard him apologize several times before, and I have been reassured that won’t happen again, time and time again ... ‘I’m sorry and it won’t happen again’ carries no merit or credit from [Hastings] at this point in his career.”
In 2011, Hastings was suspended again for one day for failing to activate a department microphone during a prisoner transport.
Later in the year, he received a six-day suspension after a complaint was filed stating he had failed to show up for court in six separate DWI cases between May 3 and Nov. 28.
Because of his absence, supervisors pointed out, prosecutors could not act on the DWI tickets, which were either rescheduled for court or dismissed outright.
Hastings also was found to have been “untruthful” when investigators asked why he missed some of the dates, the supervisor noted.
His most recent suspension was in May, several months after he fell asleep in his parked patrol car while doing some paperwork.
His supervisor noted Hastings’ extensive disciplinary history in his recommendations for disciplinary action.
“He has continuously shown poor decision-making and unprofessionalism as a Little Rock Police officer,” the report said. “I have great concern for his mental stability and decision-making as an [officer].”
Hastings received a 15-day suspension, as well as a 60-day embargo on working any off-duty jobs.
Command staff members noted that the suspension, coupled with the restrictions on off-duty work, would give Hastings “focus” and address problems.
When asked if an officer is fit for duty when his mental and analytical capacities have been questioned by immediate supervisors, Thomas said a supervisor’s assessment is considered, but it’s only one assessment, a part of a broader analysis.
Front Section, Pages 1 on 09/04/2012