NEW ORLEANS (WGNO) — The Office of Inspector General for the City of New Orleans has concluded its investigation into the allegations of a potential breach of confidentiality and security against New Orleans Police Officer Jeffery Vappie.
The purpose of the investigation was to review whether the Police Officer’s Bill of Rights was violated, which under Louisiana law states:
“That no person, agency, or department shall release to the news media, press or any other public information agency, a law enforcement officer’s home address, photograph, or any information that may be deemed otherwise confidential, without the express consent of the law enforcement officer, with respect to an investigation of the law enforcement officer.”
New Orleans Office of Inspector General
Documents filed with the OIG read that on March 27, a letter from New Orleans City Council President J.P. Morrell was sent to the Inspector General requesting an investigation into the handling of the Public Integrity Bureau’s (PIB) investigation into Vappie’s actions.
The request stems from the Office of Independent Police Monitoring’s allegations that the public and media recordings of 11 witness interviews in the Vappie investigation were released to the media before the investigation was completed.
The initial investigation surrounds New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell’s use of the city-owned Upper Pontalba Apartment located on St. Peter Street in the French Quarter.
During her time living in the unit, it was alleged that members of her Executive Protection Detail, Vappie, would regularly accompany her to the apartment both on and off duty.
On March 13, a letter was sent to Morrell, Federal District Court Judge Morgan, NOPD Deputy Chief of Public Integrity Bureau Keith Sanchez and the United States Department of Justice informing them of the released information.
On April 4, Stella Cziment with the IPM said during an interview with the OIG that she had received information from an individual who claimed to have the thumb drive consisting of the interviews.
Documents read Cziment arranged a meeting with the individual who did not disclose where the material came from. On March 13, the two met, she listened to the recordings, made copies of the drive and promised them confidentiality.
Following the exchange, Cziment contacted Sanchez requesting an audit trail to determine who had access to the recordings and documents as she was concerned about the release of sensitive information regarding the investigation.
During the investigation, Cziment also expressed concern about the statement Cantrell released stating “Those in law enforcement should not comment on her protection detail as it could create a potential security threat and they should exercise their right to not speak.”
“The City has a responsibility to safeguard sensitive information and must ensure information is provided only to individuals who have a need to possess the information,” said Inspector General Edward Michel.
On April 10, Morrell was interviewed by OIG Investigators and claimed he was contacted by Cziment messaged him on March 13 via her personal phone that read ” Hi, this is Stella from OIPM. Do you have time for an important call with me and Beldon Batiste? He has something he wants to discuss with us. It is important.”
Batiste is known to be active in the community and political issues as well as one of the organizers of the “NOLATOYA” recall efforts. During the call, Batiste alerted the two that he had the police recordings from the Vappie investigation.
Batiste asked Morrell if he wanted to view the files, which he declined as he said it would be a violation of the Policemen’s Bill of Rights. Morrell advised Batiste not to share the recordings.
As a result of the investigation, the OIG’s findings are as follows:
- The City Attorney asserted that the thumb drive containing the PIB recordings was mistakenly released to a third party, but the OIG was unable to further investigate this assertion because the alleged recipient asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and declined to be interviewed.
- The NOPD, City Attorney’s Office, and the Office of Independent Police Monitor (OIPM) neglected to attempt to recover the recordings.
- The OIPM did not initially cooperate with the OIG as required by City Code Section 2-1120 (20) and provide the OIG with all available information regarding the release.
The OIG also released a list of recommendations for the protection of sensitive records:
- Access to information and recordings related to investigations should be provided to the City Attorney’s office solely through evidence.com.
- PIB should establish a record management policy that includes language regarding the storage of all PIB files and establish procedures so that all interviews are handled in a consistent manner.
- PIB should have a separate case management system to maintain, store, and track all records related to PIB investigations.
- The City Attorney’s Office should create an electronic log to document the receipt and release of any documents from PIB in order to further ensure the protection of sensitive information.
- The CAO should ensure that all City employees and departments share with the OIG pertinent and vital information within the purview of the OIG as required by the City Code, Section 2-1120, in order to reduce the risk of overlapping operations and to ensure deconfliction.
- The OIPM should take steps to obtain the statutory authority to maintain certain information as confidential and therefore not subject to Public Records Law.
- City employees should be reminded to install the City’s device management application if they elect to use their personal cellular telephones and personal equipment while performing official duties as a City employee.
View the full OIG report
Stay up to date with the latest news, weather and sports by downloading the WGNO app on the Apple or Google Play stores and by subscribing to the WGNO newsletter.