Opinion ID: 891216
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The December 28, 2008 V.W. Complaint

Text: The complaint that was known to GJPD occurred nearly two years into Officer Coyne’s employment at GJPD. V.W. reported on December 28, 2008, that she had met Officer Coyne when she sought police assistance in November 2008 because she was intoxicated and hallucinating. She contacted him on December 19 and agreed to 3 We have chosen not to use the full names of the nonparties to this case who complained about Officer Coyne. -7- his suggestion that he visit her at home when he was off-duty. He came to her home on that same day. They engaged in consensual sex, but he allegedly took the encounter beyond her consent and sexually assaulted her. After receiving V.W.’s complaint, GJPD put Officer Coyne on administrative leave. MCSO conducted a criminal investigation. The district attorney declined to bring charges because the evidence was equivocal. According to the deputy district attorney, V.W. was not a reliable witness, she admitted that the encounter began consensually, and the medical evidence was inconclusive. Further, in addition to asserting that all the activities were consensual, Officer Coyne passed a polygraph test to that effect. GJPD subsequently conducted an internal investigation, which was kept confidential. As a result of the internal investigation, which also determined that proof of sexual assault was inconclusive, Police Chief William Gardner placed Officer Coyne on probation for at least six months and cut his pay, and Deputy Chief John Zen issued him a written notice of discipline. After the V.W. investigation, Officer Coyne was transferred to a new supervisor, Sergeant William Baker, who was told that Officer Coyne was on probation. When Sergeant Baker asked his commander why Officer Coyne had been on administrative leave, he was told that the matter was confidential pursuant to GJPD policy. In light of the policy, Sergeant Baker did not inquire further. He therefore had no knowledge of V.W.’s complaint. He stated in an affidavit filed in -8- this litigation that he supervised Officer Coyne in the same manner as the other officers assigned to report to him. Officer Coyne was still on probation at the time he met Ms. Schneider.