The URL can be used to link to this page

279345 WHITE — CITV CLERK ` ' PINK — FINANCE GITY OF SAINT PAUL Council ��`�.� CAN'RaRV — DEPARTMENT BLUE — MAVOR File NO. � o nc ' R ut 'on Presented By •�� Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS� St. Paul police officers Eugene Burke, Michael Garvey and Archie Smith were sued in U.S. District Court by Daniel and Deborah Pellowski as the result of actions taken by the Pellowski's landlord on May 1, 1977 ; and WHEREAS� the jury in the above case found tha.t the officers violated plaintiffs ' due process rights because of their failure to stop the landlord from forcibly evicting the Pellowskis and awarded plaintiffs $300 in actual dama.ges and $1,000 in punitive damages against each of the individual police officers ; and WHEREAS, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the verdict against officers Burke, Garvey and Smith; and WHEREAS� the City Council ha.s been fully informed of the facts of this case; and WHEREAS� the judgment against the officers arose out of the performance of their duties as police off icers for the City of St. Paul in responding to a police call; and WHEREAS, the City Council specifically finds that the actions of the officers which led to the judgment did not constitute ma.lfeasance in off ice or willful or wanton neglect of duty; and WHEREAS� the City Council finds that it would be in the best interests of the City and, in particular� the morale of the St. Paul Police Department and its officers, to pay this judgment; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it fitting and proper, in light of the total facts and circumstances of this case, to pay the judgment against defendants Burke, Garvey and Smith; now, therefore, be it COUNCILMEN Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Fletcher �evine [n Favor Masanz NiCOSia Scheibel _ __ Against BY Tedesco Wilson Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY B;� �lpproved by 17avor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By' - – — BY WH17E - CITV CLERK (-,{��M- /A.$� PINK - FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT 1 AU L COUIIC11 /� �� i� CAN�,RV - DEPARTMENT B�.UE - MAVOR File NO. I --� -- Council Reso ution .�.� .�� -� ? ,, ��-,,.,� ' Presented By G�"",�„`.�,� �%- ' :�'` ".� Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date Page 2. RESOLVED� that the proper City officers are hereby authorized and directed to pay Daniel Pellowski and Deborah Pellowski and their attorney, Richard Mosman the following amounts which presently exist as judgments against Eugene Burke, Michael Garvey and Archie Smith: l. $3,300 judgment of Ma.y 22, 1981 on jury verdict. 2. $178.12 cost judgment of July 29, 1981. 3. $3,806.25 attorney's fees judgment of August 3, 1982. The above amounts shall be paid from Tort Liability-Judgment Fund 09070-512-000 and must be increased by the addition of legal interest from the date of judgment to the date of payment. COUNCILMEN Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Fletcher � Levine (n Favor Masanz Nicosia scheibe� _ __ Against BY -- Tedesco iALikiv,L OC 1 7 1981 Form Approved by Cit Att rney Adopted by Council: Date — Certified a. -e Council Secretar BY By Elpproved by ; v Date _ OCT 8 1981 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY - – — �� BY P BUSNED OCT 1 fi 1982 '' i . � �. : United States Court of Appeals ;��..�.�, � COR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 81-1933 , . Daniel Pello�.�s)ci, Deborah * Pello�wski, individually and as * P3L'P11tS i�I1C� I]3tllY'dl rn�arr3ianc pf * . Jonattnon Pellawski, arx3 Josegh *. Pello�aski, mu�ors, * _ . . * Appeal frc�t ttie United .' P.ppellees, * States District �urt � . * for the Distri.ct of v. * Minnesota. _ * . * Etigene Burke, 22ichael Garvey, * and Archie Smith, * ' * Ap�llants. * . . Sul�nitted: FeUruary 11, 1982 Filed: Augu s t 18, 19 8 2 Before F�'Y, AF�10LD, and JOI�T R. GIB.SOiN,* Circuit Judges. _ • . �TOLD, Circuit Judge. Plai.ntiffs D�aniel and DP�orah Pellvwski brought this action for � th�nselves and their tw� mi.nor children, against defes�c7ants Eugene Burke, Michael Garvey, and Archie Smith, all St. Paul police officers, for violation of plaintiffs' civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§1982,1 1983, * Judge Gibson bec.ame a r�nber of this Court on March 30, 1982. At the t�me of the oral arg�nent, he was a Unitecl States District Judge for the Weste.rn District of Missouri, sitting by designation. 1 Plaintiffs' claims under §1982 were disnissed prior to trial and are not before us on this appeal. � : . , ��''2� . 1985, and 1986. The case was tried before a jury, which fo�d defer�dants liable under §1983 and awarded plaintiffs $300.00 in actual dama9es- The �u�, a1,so awarded $1,000.00 in p�uzitive damages against each of tY�e individual police officPSS. We affirm. : I. . . ' Plaintiffs' action arose fram events ' g tY�eir evictian � frcm their ap�artment in 197?. We recount the facts as the ]�Y �'� . ; have fa��d then. takin9 the view of the evide�ce m�st favorable to . . pl.a�ntiffs, as we are bound to do in the p�ocedural oantext of this case. After maving int� the apaz'1��nt at #1252 Hazelwood, St. Paul, Mi.nnesota, in Octaber 1976, plaintiffs enoauritered difficulties with the m�nag�Zt and sane of the ott�er t�es�aiits. P].a.�ntiffs lodged ocenplaints with tlye laridlond an several oocasio�s about clean7:iness ar�d maintenance of their ' apart�nent, In turn� sevesal tt�.n�nts ocxnplained t�o tY�e l.andl.ord aboalt ex- cessive noise frrm plaintiffs' apartme-nt. � one oocasian, the polioe were called tA plaintiffs' apartme.nt in response tA a oce�].a,int about noise. _ In March► 1977, the landlord instituted an �il.awtzil--�ietainer acti.on against plaintiffs for nonpayme�it of that month's rent. A ' settlanent was reached, with Plainti.ffs agreeing tA gay the rent for March and the landlord prcanising t�o inspect Pla inti.f f s' apart�n�nt for needed repairs. During pendencl' of the uril.awful�letainer proceeding and pri�or tA settl��ent, plaintiffs received a secor�d natice to vacate . the apa�nent. The next m�ntlz� Plaint�ffs paid part of the rent for April and tAld the lanr3lord that, because they w�se sh�rt of m�ney. he should deduct the balan�ce of the r�t fran plaintiffs' da�nage deposit after they left the apartr�1t- . pn Apri.l 29, 1977, pl.a�sitiff Deborah Pellowski was infox�ecl by - one of the landlord's prop�stY mana9�S� Mrs. N°ran, that plaintiffs had tr� vacate theis apart��nt by midnight on Apri1 30. Mrs. Pellawski infornr�d I+lrs. Noran that plaintiffs wc�uld not be able t� mav� until - 2 - r �� "19�3.�� May� 2, when their welfare check arrived. The following day, p,pril 30, � 1977, Mrs. Noran spoke to Mrs. Pellowski several more times, inquirinq again whether the plaintiffs would be out of theis apartrnent by midniqht. _ Shortly before 12:00 that evening, Mrs. Noran's husband appeared at plaintif f s' apartr�t door deznarid.ing that pl.a�ntif f s i�mned.iately vacate the pregnises. Wh�n plaintiffs refused to leave, the mai�agers called the � police for the purpose of re�mving plaintiffs fro�n the apa.rtxrent. The police arrived at the ap�ai-t�t building a few minutes after 12:00 mianight on the m�rning of S�rbday, May 1, 1977. Ac.00mpanied by . the property mai�agers, Mr. ar�d.Mrs. Noran, the defer�dant police officers atte�ted tA talk with plaintiffs, who, uncertain of the officers' identity, . refused to open the door � then. The defendants admitted tA plaintiffs that they had no search �rrant or ornirt order auth�rizing ttren t� enter � . plaintiffs' apartrnent. Acti.ng on the advice of their attArney, wixan ttiey had called after the p�lice arrived, plaintiffs oontinued tA refuse to � � open tt�eir apartznent door to eithes the manager or the defendant officers. Seeking but receiving no assuranoe fran the police officers that a forcible entry was legally proper, the extremely agitated Mr. Noran decided t� take matters into his o�ari hands. Using a pass key, he opened tY�e door to the apai.-trnent a few incl�ees but was restrained frc�n proceeding any farther by a chain lock. Mr. Noran then kicked the door down while the defendant office.rs looked an. The officers follawed the Norans int� the apartr►�sit as the Norans and several persons frcan the apart�nent building began moving plaintiffs' belongings aut of the apartrc�ent and antA the lx�?lr7�*+g'S front yard. �i.le in the apar�nt, or�e of the officers spoke over tr�e teleph4ne with plaintiffs' att�rney, wl» advised the officer that the eviction was unlawfiil.. After they wpse forci.bly evicted, plaintiffs stayed with Mr.. Pellowski's brother until they wpse able t�o mave int�o a new apartr�nt. Plaintiffs subsequently kxrought thi.s actian against defendant police officers, alleging violation of their due process and equal protection rights.2 An out-bf-oourt settle�nent was reached with the landlords. - 3 - ' � , ` �. � ' 3 ��J�� , On appeal, defendants claim that the District O�urt erred in � hc�lding as a matter of law that Mr. Noran had �itted a crime in their presenoe. They also argue that there �ras insufficient evidence tA justify sutmitting to the jury the questian of "gross negligence" and �' the issue of punitive datnages. , II. Ur�der the oanroaz law of Misinesota, a land].ord may rightful.ly use self help t�o regain leased praperty frcen a te.nant in possessi.oa� if the landlord is ez�titled to possessian and his means of entry are peaceable. Berg v. Wi1ey, 264 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Mirui. 1978) ; Mercil v. B,rouillette, � 66 Minn. 416, 69 N.W. 218 (1896) . In the p�esent case, the Distsict Oaurt hel,d as a matter of law that the entzy into plaintiffs' apar�nt _ was mt peaoeable, after having first given the folloWing instructi�o�s to the juYy: The Plainti.ffs' Praperty rights are defined by Minnesota law. That law provides that a landlord may take possession of property fro�n tenants wh� ren�in � that pro�pert.y past their right tA remain there only if he enters that property withaut force and in a peaceable maruier. Thus a t:enant has a property right against su�ch an entsy. If a land- lord seelcs tn regain praperty ar�d cannot ciQ so withaut force, he must use the procedures set forth in Minnesota law. 'I7nse procedures provide that he can }aring an action for tm].awful detainer and both the tenants and landlorcl will have an opportunity . to present evidence t� a• o�urt. If a tenant is then ordered t� vacate and refuses to do so, proc.edures are then set out under Mirinesota law which pravide that the County Sheriff w:i.11 relm�ve the tenants. Contending that the basis for th�e District Court's instructions Was the t�linnesota Suprerrie Court's decision in Berg v. Wiley, supra, defendants note that Ber� was not decided until after the events which gave rise to the present case. Fro�n this, defendants argue that the 3 The Hon. Diana E. Murphy, United States District Judge for the District of Mirmesota. - 4 - �� . �� ' instructions• were erroneous and that the jury should not have been - instructed that force cannot be used by a landlord to retalce property, We cannot agree. The instructions of the District Coti�rt essentially state the cce�c;ron-law rule which has beeri the law of riinnesota since at least 1896 when the Suprene Oourt decided Mercil v. Hrouillette, ra. In M�ercil, the court stated: � [I]f a person lawfully entitled t� possession of real property can make peaceable entry, even while ar�other is in occupation, the entry, in cont��lation of law, gives or restares to him oo��lete p�ssession. Arbd it has eve� beeii held that it is not unlawful for him t�o resort tA such means, short of the �loyn�ent of force, as will render furthQS oocul�ation by the otY�er . . i�racticable. 66 Minn. at 418, 69 N.W. at 219 (e�hasis ours) . AlthQUgh the oourt in Berg v. Wiley, supra, ultimately departed . fram the a�rron-law rule,4 it is clear that the Distsict Court did not rely on that aspect of the decision in fornwlating its instructions to the jury, if it relied on � at all. Under the c�ocnron-law rule, as stated by the District Court, the use of force by the landlord makes an eviction unlawfuls and gives th�e tenant the right to recaver damages. See Staeeney v. Meyers, 199 Minn. 21, 270 N.W. 906 (1937) . Here, the property manager ";�ad no right tA make an entry with strong hand, or with a multitude of people, but he had the right tn enter in a peaceable n�anner." Mercil v. Brouillette, s�ra, 66 Mi.uzn. at 418, 69 N.W. at 219 4 �]ear the end of its opinion, the Aiirmesota S�presne Court in Berg held ttlat "the only lawful means t�o dispossess a tei�nt who has not abandoned nor voluntarily surrendered but wh� claims possession adversely to a landlord's claim of breach of a written lease is by resort t� . judicial process." 264 N.W.2d at 151. The v�urt fizrther held that its decision would have prospective effect only. Id. 5 Dtinriesota Statute §504.25 makes guilty of a misde�anor "[a] landlord, agent of the landlord or person acting under the landlord's direction or control who unlawfully and intentionally re�roves or excludes a tenant from lands or tenements." (Emphasis ours) . - 5 - � �i.T�"�°-� , '� '(anPhasis ours) . Tt�e District O�urt, in applying the oo�c�mn-law rule, did not err in finding the eviction wrongful as a matter of law. Ar�d of o�urse we ordinarily defer to the district oourts on questions of the .law of ::;. :: : tlzeir own state. . _ _ _._ � : ._ . .. .i . ?'=- .•_- _ - ---- . , . _ III. _ _ _ . r :..,-:- �: ,_- • , �I�'1C' D1S�S'1Ct C011� 31S0 1riS�'t]Ct� '� ]llt'y '�13t, lIl Ol'C�P.r tA establish a claim under. 42 I7.S.C: §1983, plaintiffs�had t� sYiow by a pre- - .- - �� .. .� - _ . , t. . ., ponderance of the�,evidence that the defe�c�ints_acted 3mawingly, recklessly, -�- -_..,_._ _ . � . _ . or in a grossly n�liger�t-=mazmer-tA 3eprive`�plaintiffs of=th�eir oonstitu- tional rights. Defei�ants'��ovntend ttiat .the:,evidence was insuffici.ent tA � - - _.:� - ...�� .��'� _ _._ . ..._ . . justify t1�e sut�iri.ssion.af the�:c�:se fiA-=tt�eY jui.y"un�der"- a gross�egligence standard. . ..__ _- . ... . _. _ _ }� .,�:r:, At ttLe time of the events^in��tlii.s�`case',"�defendant Officer 57nith�had+ beP� a veteran of the police departm�nt for at least six years, while . . - .., , . _ . . . ., , -. deferx3ants Officers Burke and Ganiey�had been with the depar�t for � ��-, :. ., :;. --: , :._ _ _. _ .. . _ _.. .�.:: --- : : -_ --- . - -• _ :: ,_. two years. � Fa,cfi��defe.ix3�int testified ttiat tiis police training �ncluded a study of state cr�minal��statutes: Altt�aiigh defendants wpse ac�nittedly , unfamiliar� witti`the specifics of landlord-terk-int law, each officer`was` ~ � aware� that the �Shesiff's D�p�nt usi�ally haixiled evictions ancl that_._ _ . ._ . .. .: - .: _-- � Pr'o'1� lega]. authority was needed for the evicti� of' tenants.� In ad- . dition,-�the�of ficers made no�ef fort to obta in instnictions about ttie�-prop�.r procedure tA follow; eve:n thoiigh they cou].d have easily co�aaiicated with��: police headquarters for �infoaiiation. One of their supervisors; Lieutenant McDon�ld,.'t:�stified that�he lazeia that� it was a misd�nor,. iir�der _.._ .:_ Miruiesot.a law, for a landlord to e�rict a t�enant forcibly. Also,--Officer----- : .. ._. , . .. , . Garvey was told.by_plaintiffs' attarney, w�lan pla.intiffs had t�el.eph�ned,__.:: _ .. . ,_ .. _.., . ...._. _.. _ when the police�fixst-arrived at their..apartment, that neither�-�h� nor=;'�`::::.=" the other officers nor the Norans had a right to entes plaintiffs' apartz�ient by force without a court order. - _ _. _ . . . .._. .. _ 41hen the defend�nt officers met the Norans at the ap�artnient bu.il.ding, it �ras obvious t�o th�n that Mr. Noran was very_ angzy. He was insistent� , _ . - 6..- � � Nri �V�';,• that socne action be taken t�o evict the plaintiffs iim�ediately. The jurv oould have found also that it �ras clear that Mr. DToran would probably resort to using force t�o evict plaintiffs. Despite these fact�ors, � deferx3ants made little or no effort tA restrain him and st�ood by�"arid�� - , watched as Mr. Noran Yaroke do�in the c�oor to plaintiffs' apartment, e�ren - . � ttx�ugh defendants achnitted being unsure .of who actually had the right._� �_--: t�o possession of the a�nt. , . . � _� �- - �.. ':.�. _ - ;� � ;. � �nsidering the evidence as presented, we cannot say that4the . . ' . . :ai:�:: District Daurt erred in su�cnitting the question �of`gross'�negligence tA the jury. Plaintiffs had a right under state 1aw r�at t,o be evicted by foroe fran their leaser3 Yr�, and that right��is�'"p�ropert..y"�:�..by the Due Process Clause of the Ebvrteenth A�m�ent. It was for the juYy, on this �reoo�;:=t�oR detesinuze the defendant`s� �state of'mu�d.� ..` _ :�" . _ ...:r�'., . _ ��s: ..--- 1V. _ . ,-, Deferr3ants' final arg�m�ent on appeal is that, the District_ O�urt . ..., ,: _, , . . _ ,. . _ . ..... .-- erred in su�nitting tl�e issue of punitive damages tA the J�Y- :. ��Y - �.; .�. . ., .. . argue that there was no evidence of`maTice�or-ill wi11 ori �the.part of the� deferidants t�o justify instrvcti.ng the jurY an that _issve. � _ _ . . _ .. .. � , �This ::ourt has held that "[Pl Lmitive dam3ges may . . . ..be awarded: ..;... in civi.l rights actions whe,re the defendant exhihits oppression, malice, gross negligence, w�llful or tiranton mi.soonduct, or a recictess disreg-�rd for the civil rights of the plairitiff." Gti�vz v. Western State Bank of -_ _, Devils Lake, 540 F.2d 948, 953 (8th Cir. 19'16) (award of punitive damages •,. . against seller and ban}c for � garte attacharnnt and seizure of. pla�ntiffs'_; :. rrobile lx�� and autosmhile) . The jury apparently four�d that ,the_defendant..�.. officers' oonduct oonstituted, at a minim�an, gross negligence, ar�d we - . ._ ._....... have detennined that there was sufficient evidence for a �jutiy reasonably�� to make such a finding. The police officers fai.led to act while a mi.s- dezneanor was being pe�trated in their presenoe, and the jury found that that inaction deprived plaintiffs of property rights guarant.eed by the - � Constitution. 4�ile, in viewing the evidence introdu�ced at trial; _we ` _ � � - 7 - ., < , � � � 1 �7��R_! award of punitive damages. In my opinion the evidence fails to support a jury finding of malice on the part of defendants Burke and Smith so as to subject them to punitive damages. I feel that the eviction and failure to ascertain the legal propriety of the landlords ' actions, without more, do �, _ not show spite or ill will sufficient to constitute malice on the part of the police officers. They were simply part of the pattern of events involving both the off icers and the represen- tatives of the landlords, and do no more than support the award of actual damages against the police officers. The spite or ill will necessary to constitute malice was described in rsrs. Pellowski' s testimony concerning three state- � ments that were made in her presence. She said someone threatened to throw Mr. Pellowski through the window, but she did not make clear whether this statement was made by one of the officers or by the representatives of the landlords. Mrs.. Pellowski also stated that one of the police officers referred to plaintiffs as "welfare bums. " She was confident that two officers were in the room at the time, but the officers, and the speaker were. not identif ied. l This evidence, without identification of the speaker, f ails to connect defendants as wrongdoers. Vetters v. Berry, et al. , 575 F.2d 90, 96 (6th Cir. 1978) , or to show �. personal participation in the wrongful acts, or actual or con- � structive knowledge of the acts and acquiescence in them. � Fisher• v. Volz , 496 F.2d 333 , 349-50 (3d Cir. 1973) . The tes- . (; timony concerning these two statements, therefore, fails to -'; identify a defendant or defendants to subject these persons to 1 punitive damages. Mrs. Pellowski testified that the f irst police off icer to 1With respect to the identification of the speaker, see � DeLoach v. United States, 307 F. 2d 653 (D.C. Cir. 1962).. - 9 - . � � �. �. ��y� , � �a� en�er the apartment profanely asked whether the Pellowskis were going to move their furnishings or whether the officers had to. The evidence further established that this first , police officer in the room was defendant Garvey. When this � evidence is considered in the light most favorable to plain- tiffs , I feel that there is a sufficient showing of malice . to make a submissible issue of punitive damages with respect to defendant Garvey. Accordingly, I concur with the majority in the award of actual damages against all three defendants and the award of punitive damages against defendant Garvey. I respectfully disagree with the finding that there is justification for a judgment of punitive damages against defendants Smith and Burke. As to defendants Smith and Burke, I would reverse the judgment of punitive damages and remand for further consid- eration of this issue. A true copy. ' Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. - 10 - 1..�' � . � �li�� ,A,'�' �piTTOt • CITY OF SAINT PAUL ;�`� o '� OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY r riii'ii"ii � � ,, EDWARD P. STARR, CITY ATTORNEY �.d• 647 City Hall, Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 6�2-298-5121 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR i \ 11 ��;_ �-( � � ��. /r..� \ r�. �� . MEMORANDUM ,:�,� � � � �' i (f„ : - ' �� i"',,..i -" t � ' S�� ;� g °��2:� -- T0: Members of the Ci Council "� � � ' l �- �.,��n�ri4��'��.i`�i � -� FROM• Beryl A. Nor r f` �' ��`��5�'� �`� • � �� Assistant Ci ttorney ,:�-�� I t ] i DATE: September 24, 1982 RE: Pellowski v. Burke et al. • Payment o Pu.nitive Dama.ge Judgment Attached hereto is a resolution to authorize payment of a punitive dama.ge judgment against three St. Paul police officers. The case is a federal civil rights action which was tried in federal court in Ma.y of 1981. The Jury found that the police officers ha.d violated plaintiff 's due process rights and awarded $300 actual damages and $3,000 punitive dama.ges ($1,000 against each off icer) . This office ap�ealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the Circuit Court appeared to be troubled by the case and granted oral ar�ument they recently issued an opinion affirming the case. This off ice be�lieve tha.t, due to the nature and cir- cumstances of the case, the City should pay the judgment, costs, attorneys and interest on behalf of the police officers involved. I am attachin� hereto a copy of the opinion of the Eighth Circuit since it outlines many of the facts herein. However, it should be noted that the facts stated by the Eighth Circuit are viewed in a light most favorable to the laintiffs. The City, for purposes of paying punitive dama.ge awards , may tac�e into consideration f indings of the federal court and jury but the Council is not bound by them. Douglas v. City of Minneapolis , 230 N.W.2d 577, 584 n.3 (1975) . Certain matters are not brought out in the Eighth Circuit opinion. First of all, there was no case of racial discrimination here because the plaintiffs were white. The due process claim related to actions of the landlord in evicting plaintiffs without going through court procedures . It was argued that the police officers should have known that the landlord was wrong and stopped the landlord. There was no claim that the officer ever touched the plaintiffs or moved any furniture, etc. The officers testified .�g;y:��;i � ' ~ • • � A JCJ'`�'r � M that they did not know who was right in the dis�ute and that they stayed on the premises solely to prevent violence. Moreover, while they were there they did ascertain if plaintiffs ha.d some- where to �o. They helped one of the plaintiffs find their shoes . They testified tha.t they were told by the landlord tha.t the landlord ha.d followed proper court procedures . The plaintiffs would not talk to the police except for yelling names, although the officers tried to get plaintiffs side of the story. It is the opinion of this office that the jury should not have awarded punitive dama.ges in this case and that, at most, there was si.mple negligence here due to lack of training of the officers by the City in landlord-tena.nt matters. BAN:paw enc. cc. Greg Ha.upt Chief McCutcheon