Dismissed officer had history of disciplinary inquiries
A Cape Coral police officer with a history of disciplinary inquiries was fired Monday following the completion of an internal affairs investigation.
Officer Michael Moore was served a notice of his termination and placed on administrative leave pending the final disposition of the matter, according to police officials. Moore has 10 days to notify the city of any intent to appeal the decision as is provided by city ordinance or the police union contract.
Moore has been an officer with the Cape Coral Police Department for five years and his annual salary is $48,401. The internal affairs investigation was opened after a complaint was filed regarding Moore’s actions during a call for service in June, according to Connie Barron, spokeswoman for the CCPD.
Interim Police Chief Jay Murphy wrote in the termination notice that Moore used profanity, had escalated a situation without the proper performance of de-escalation and had a “deficiency for the foundation of” an arrest made.
“I find there is cause to take corrective action against you,” Murphy said. “Especially, as this is not the first occurrence of an incident of this nature, I am compelled to examine your past conduct when considering the appropriate level of correction action to be taken against you.”
Moore has been the subject of 11 documented disciplinary inquiries during his five years of employment. Since August 2008, Moore has been the subject of six inquires, of which five were related to his demeanor with supervisors and the public. Two involved the use of force and and resulted in investigations.
Murphy wrote that the department afforded remedial and additional training to Moore in response to the matters, and Moore’s supervisors reported that they had provided individual counseling on numerous occasions. Murphy also wrote that there was a concern with Moore’s application of criminal law.
“Once again, the Office of the State Attorney has declined prosecution of the arrested party,” he said.
On June 2, Moore and another officer responded to a 911 medical call with suspicious circumstances at a home on Northwest 22nd Place. The caller reported that his wife was having pain, the internal affairs report states.
The officers arrived and made contact with the man, then located his wife lying down in a bedroom. According to the report, the man refused to leave the room and had to be escorted out by both officers. When the man would not cooperate, Moore placed the man under arrest for obstruction.
The State Attorney’s Office nolle prosequi the case. During the internal affairs investigation, the assistant state attorney reported that the case was dropped because “it could not be won in court.” The assistant state attorney also “felt it should never have been filed on to begin with.”
On July 8, the man submitted a compliant to the CCPD.
His concern was about Moore and the other officer “being unprofessional, not properly performing their duties as a police officer and using excessive force against him,” the report states. The man said Moore “paraded” him in his underwear before a female officer and others during the arrest process.
Detective Sgt. Allan Kolak, who conducted the internal affairs investigation, found that Moore did escalate the dialogue between himself and the husband and that he failed to use proper persuasion techniques to gain compliance. He also was “verbally aggressive and had unprofessional behavior at times.”
The allegation that Moore was not acting properly and paraded the man in front of a female officer after arresting the man in his underwear was not sustained. Kolak called Moore not asking for a prisoner jumpsuit or blanket for the man “bad judgement,” and further attributed it to a policy failure.
“This appears to be a training and policy issue since there is nothing in General Order about obtaining clothing for an arrestee that is scantily clad before being transported,” he wrote.
The allegation of excessive use of force by Moore and the other officer were unfounded by Kolak, who wrote that they acted within department guidelines.
“The officers could have used additional force by policy,” he added.