Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SWORN STATEMENT OF JOSE CARDELL MARCH 28, 2012 JOSE CARDELL having been first duly sworn testifies as follows: MR. TORRENS: 28, 2012. Today is Wednesday, March I am
Sergeant Edward Torrens, internal affairs investigator for the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department. Mr. Cardell at this time could you
read the affidavit into the record, please? THE WITNESS: I, Joe Cardell, being first
duly sworn hereby state my name is Joe Cardell. I reside at 6100 Northwest 2nd Avenue for work. My date of birth is 9-1-57. is 305-219-2155. My contact number
statement to Sergeant Edward Torrens who has identified himself as an internal affairs investigator from the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department, State of Florida, in connection with case number IA number 12-001 and IA #12-002. I'm of sound mind and I'm not under
the influence of any drugs or alcohol at this time. I understand that giving false
information in this statement is in violation of Florida Statute 837.05, false reports to law
Page: 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
enforcement authorities punishable as a misdemeanor of the first degree, 837.06, making false official statements punishable as a misdemeanor in the second degree. MR. TORRENS: sir. Okay, thank you very much
without any promises and without any threats or duress to provide information in an investigation being conducted by the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department? THE WITNESS: MR. TORRENS: Yes. Sir are you aware that the
conversation with me is being recorded? THE WITNESS: MR. TORRENS: Yes. Are you aware that anything
you say may or may not be used in a departmental hearing or in a court of law? THE WITNESS: MR. TORRENS: Yes. Okay sir, okay Mr. Cardell
the affidavit you signed it, and did I sign it as a witness? THE WITNESS: Yes.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26, I was instructed to insure that dissemination of the T.M. reports or data in our system follow the protocol for dissemination. Q A Okay. And apparently it was a heightened case
because of the murder of the individual and that causes a lot of requests for information. So we're
just put on alert to make sure we follow the protocol which is for any reports that are work through the SOP or the records unit to the PIO and from there, potentially the districts information officer, chief information officer. it's been John Schuster. Q officer. A Legal implications and school board Yes, he's the chief communications Classically
attorneys so that's why it needs to go that route. Q A Okay. So I was you know, I had been through this
before with Southwood and Coral Gables. Q A On some other incident, okay. And so I understood it was just a reminder
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q A
had already disseminated it. Q A Okay. Apparently we had to the PIO but then
looking in the system I discovered that there was some activity on the police report with different individuals printing it out and/or making modifications. Q A Okay. So I -- I reported that immediately to the
chief which had asked me to make sure that protocol was followed and I brought it to his attention that you know, different people had printed out the report on different dates. Q A guess. Q Okay, all right and I see you brought some Okay. And so that's the reason why I'm here I
documentations, some print out. A Q A Q Yes. And if you could just kind of -Well, this is a systematic process. Okay.
Page: 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A pen. Q A
Yeah, you could use my pen. On page one I have a snap shot of the
police report. Q A Q A Okay. In form presentation. Okay. Not as the police report would show if it
printed out but just the way it shows in the computer system. Q A Okay. Particularly on the officers lap top that
originated the report. Q A Okay. And it's two forms. Basically they
clearly show that on October 20 of 2011 the incident occurred and that the report was written October 21 and it was completed and submitted to the supervisor for review and the supervisor cleared the report EC, exceptionally cleared, on the status in disposition. And after a denial for some reason it was ultimately submitted and ultimately Sergeant Urstrelly (phonetic) approved the report with the exceptionally cleared and submitted it to records
Page: 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
It was not
referred to GIU and it shows here assigned investigator blank, investigative unit blank, investigation status not referred. So that's page
one and then page two I have here in November 15 of 2011, the department was conducting a routine quality control. Routine quality control on a
monthly basis and so we pulled the October reports. And then here it clearly shows that that particular report was pulled. Ultimately it wasn't reviewed
but it was pulled as part of the pull from which to pull the ones that would be quality control. Q A volume. Q A Volume of sampling, okay. Right and so here this particular report So like the sampling? So it was a sampling, it was the large
clearly shows an identical match to the original record that was submitted -Q A Okay. -- when it was first submitted after being
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
supervisor, and the status in disposition both show an eight which is equivalent to EC or exceptionally cleared. Q A Okay. And then investigator zero, meaning there
is no investigator, and the investigator status is not referred and then I see that the public narrative is identical to what it currently is today. But consistently the report was basically
written and sent in and that was the end of it. Q A Okay. But the concern arrises in the fact that On page two where on the top side you
-- let's see.
have the quality control record -Q A Okay. -- you have below that there's two forms
from an audit that was done on the police report -Q A Okay. -- in order to determine if any
dissemination had been concluded or occurred as a result of being requested, to ensure proper protocol. Q A Okay. So what this audit reveals is that in
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q A
you know, it indicates that prior to this occasion it had not been printed but as a result in this activity, the printed incident report, 2011 -11-4-77 was printed a full copy with initial narrative with all related supplements and for S. Hadley in DSP. Q A 29th. Q A -Q A Q A The incident? -- the individual got murdered in Orlando. Okay. There's another print for Renee Kearse, Okay. Which apparently was three days after the Okay. And -- well that occurred on February
support specialist at GIU. Q A Okay. And so that was you know, something I had
to bring to the attention to the chief -Q A Okay. -- because I had just been instructed to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q A
apparently was already printed and you know, taken outside of the system. Q A Okay. Since then it's been -- well let's see,
with this police report on March the 21st for some reason, which I don't understand and I don't intend to speculate -Q A Q A Sure. -- but Sergeant Lourdes Hodges -Okay. -- as the user made a modification, which
resulted in a tracking that resulted in system stamping a note that says, "Status changed to 8. 3/21/2012 at 15:25 by case management". So
apparently, a user L. Hodges, was identified by the system and the system generated a record that a modification was made to the status of the police report with an EC -Q A Okay. -- which is the same value that it
Page: 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
originally has. Q A Okay, so let me -- okay go ahead finish. And so that was a modification made to the
report and the -- the conflict here is that the report had not been referred to the investitive unit -Q A function. Okay. -- and that this was an investigative And so this was not understood what the
relationship is with this change on a report that had not been referred. Q A Okay. But it's just activity so the system put
that out there. Q A Okay. And -- and there after on page four and
March 27, which was yesterday, at 1:22 and 1:23 p.m. went back into the system and printed out the report, the same report again, 2011 11-4-77 -Q A Okay. -- printed it out again by user S. Hadley But also, another report was
Page: 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
printed out which was 2012, 02534 which is a different police report and apparently in some way it relates to the other report. Q A Q A Okay. Some property or some -Something. -- confiscated. But anyways, that report
was printed out as well. Q A Okay. There's policies in the standard operating
police activity records and public records access should be strictly done through the records unit and so it appears that depending on the purpose of the use of the print outs and the access of the reports, if in fact they were disseminated, violates the policy and procedure of the department. Q A Okay. And this case apparently ended up in the
news media because I was watching television on the news and -Q attention.
Page: 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
secure our data I was familiar with the case and I was watching the news and basically the news reported you know, verbatim, this police report. And how it got out there, other than through the proper protocol which I don't believe that the Schuster or the school board attorney has released this report yet, but it appears that the report has -- it appears that our protocol has been compromised and that the report is out there and many news media have it. And you know, I'm in charge of a
department that doesn't disseminate this and they -you know, we're instructed not to disseminate it and then they didn't, they only handed it to the PIO -Q A Right. -- which these other instances we can't
account for them. Q A Okay. So I'm just putting the information that's
available to me out, for someone else to do what they're supposed to do which -Q A Right. -- is outside of my purview or my
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
As far as you
can tell or as far as you know with the research that you've done has the -- any of the two reports or the police reports, the content, the narrative, has there been any changes or -A Q A No. Okay, so that's okay. I looked at the narrative from the
original report and what we did in quality control and I compared that narrative with the narrative that is in the report today and they were both exactly matching. Q Exactly the same, okay. Question, you
have on printout here indicating Sergeant Hodges, or S. Hodges, that there was -- I'm sorry my correction, L. Hodges. See here it says status, and
I'm reading here from the incident tracking snap shot here. The status changed to eight and it has 1525 by case management.
Okay, that is as some kind of default? A Q A Q A That's a system input. Common system input, okay. It's a system stamp in the notes. Okay, in the notes. As a result of the user effecting a change
Page: 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
-Q A Q Okay. -- to the record for the status. For the status, okay. So it was changed
to eight and you indicated that eight is the equivalent of exceptionally cleared. A Q Exceptionally cleared. Okay, and it was -- what was the case
status before this? A Q Before this it was an eight. Okay, so basically it would read here
status changed to eight and the date it was already -- so it was kind of like a duplicate -A Q then. Redundant. Redundant, okay, so it was more redundant Okay, so we have this here. And do we have
any indication here that L. Hodges printed anything out? A Q A Q No. No, just basically that? Yes. Okay, that she -- okay. But what we do
have is these other two employees here and it does read here and I'm reading out of page two the auditing, where it says printed. So Hadley, I guess
Page: 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
a sign in name or identification, printed it -printed a report here, and also an R. Kearse. But
then you also have for this other here on page four and five, you also have S. Hadley printing out the report again. So we have one here, okay, so we have
this one here, this report was printed a second time actually as of yesterdays date. A Q Yes. And then you have the other report which I
guess has some kind of correlation or relationship with the individual -- with the young man that was killed, this other report. So he -- it also
indicates here that S. Hadley printed out that report? A Q Yes. Okay, so I just wanted to make sure that I Is there anything else you want to
police reports since there's this activity so others won't access it -Q A Okay. -- and I don't really have anything else I can continue researching the system
at the time.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
what you're saying on the first page where it was -when the report was originally a report -- the case number 211-11477 back on October 20 -- what is it, October 20, yeah, 2011. It was written and cleared,
exceptionally cleared by the supervisor, Sergeant Ustrelli (phonetic) and I could see here it was never forwarded -- I'm just reading here, I want to be correct here. In the incident report, it was
never forwarded and not forwarded to the investigative division, there is no assigned investigator or no investigative number. Okay, I
just want to make sure that I'm reading that correctly. Okay, Mr. Cardell, is there anything
that I may have failed to ask you that you would like to add to your statement? A Q Nope. Okay, are there any other persons or
witnesses to the alleged act? A Q Nope. Has everything you've said been the truth
to the best of your knowledge? A Q Yes. Okay, you are reminded that you are
Page: 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
prohibited from disclosing any information obtained pursuant to this investigation until this case is closed. This concludes the statement. It is
Page: 17