Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01394-GIVIS Document 152-2 Filed 01/31/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CAPTAIN BARBARA L. CONLEY, : I
v. C.A. No. 04-1394-GMS
COLONEL L. AARON CHAFFINCH,
et al. :
Defendants,
Affidavit of Captain James Paige
l. I have been a member of the Delaware State Police since March 16, 1984, and
have attained the rank of Captain. I am currently the Commander of DSP Troop #9 in '
Odessa.
2. From September 10, 2001, until April 3, 2005, I was assigned to the Internal
Affairs Unit, as the officer in charge. My responsibilities there included supervising and
conducting investigations into complaints or allegations of serious misconduct against
members ofthe Division. Upon completion of substantiated investigations, it was my
responsibility to initiate charges against oiiicers at the direction ofthe Lt. Colonel or his
designee, and when appropriate, prepare cases for presentation in hearings before
p Divisional Trial Boards.
3. When a Divisional Hearing Board is to be convened to hear charges against an
oflicer, the Delaware State Police Administrative Manual, at page VII-5—1 3, requires that
the Internal Affairs oiiicer in each case “transmit an e-mail to all troops and sections
which will: [a] Identity the defendant oiiicer; [b] Identify the Rule or Job Performance

Case 1 :04-cv-01394-GIVIS Document 152-2 Filed 01/31/2006 Page 2 of 4
Standard allegedly violated; [c] Id tify the date, time, and place of the hearing; and [d} l
identify the officers selected to hear the matter."
4. The purpose ofthe notice to all personnel is to insure that the Board members will
give a fair hearing to the oliicer charged. Upon the posting ofthe e-mail notification
concerning the Divisional Hearing Board, any employee ofthe Division of State Police
who believes that any member ofthe Board would be biased, prejudiced, or otherwise
predisposed in the matter is required to immediately contact the officer in charge of
Internal Affairs.
5. A second purpose ofthe notice to aH personnel is to determine if any officer may
possess information relevant to the charges before the Board. Any employee ofthe T
Division who may possess information that would affect the proceeding is required to
contact the officer in charge of Intemal Affairs.
6. The electronic notice ofthe convening of a trial board sent to all DSP personnel
contains only the information set forth in paragraph 4 above. The notice does not
disclose the content of any records compiled as a result ofthe investigation. All such
records remain confidential, pursuant the DSP Manual provisions and the Law
Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights.
7. On October 25, 2004, an electronic mail notice ofthe trial board convened to hear
the case against Captain Barbara Conley was sent to all DSP personnel. This notice
conformed to the criteria set forth in the Administrative Manual. The e-mail notice was
issued in the normal course of business ofthe Internal Affairs Unit. I issued the notice,
as officer in charge of Internal Affairs, based upon procedure outlined in the Delaware
State Police Administrative Manua1’s Complaint and Disciplinary Procedures (II.D.2).

Case 1 :04-cv—O1394-GIVIS Document 152-2 Filed O1/31/2006 Page 3 of 4
8. When senior staff learned that the reporter, Tom Eldred, had obtained a copy of
the e-mail notification and was seeking comment from DSP, advice of counsel was
sought. I was present at the meeting where counsel, Mr. Tupman, advised us to attempt
to obtain a copy ofthe document the reporter claimed to have. Once this was done,
counsel advised that the Public Information Oiiicer could confirm only the information
already obtained by the reporter in the e-mail, and to provide no information beyond that.
No information deemed coniidential under LEOBOR and/or the DSP Manual was
disclosed to the reporter. I did not release the e-mail to the reporter and have no
knowledge of who did.
9. As officer in charge of Internal Affairs, I was directed by Colonel MacLeish to
investigate whether any DSP employee or trooper was involved in providing a copy of
the e-mail notice to the reporter. I initially contacted Captain Mary Ann Papili and Keith
Caskey on October 29, 2004, regarding a search of this e-mail, to detemrine if it was
forwarded by any Divisional personnel.
10. I spoke to Keith Caskey on November 1, 2004 regarding the results ofthe search
He advised that the search did not find anyone who had forwarded the e-mail in question
It was therefore my conclusion that the message provided to the reporter could not be
electronically identitied as to its source, or linked toany one ofthe approximately six
hundred recipients.
l 1. On advice of counsel, it was determined that I could not compel the reporter
involved to answer my questions concerning the source of his information, and could not
compel the reporter to produce a copy ofthe e-mail provided to him. Lacking any other
information on possible suspects or sources ofthe information obtained by the reporter,

Case 1 :04-cv-01394-GIVIS Document 152-2 Filed 01/31/2006 Page 4 of 4
the Internal Affairs investigation into the matter could proceed no iiirther. I so advised _
the Colonel.
BE IT REMEMBEREDthatonthis gg, dayof ggzzcmpigg ,2006
personally appeared before me, the Subscriber, a Notary Public r the State and County
aforesaid, JAMES PAIGE, who, being by me duly sworn according to law did depose
and say that the foregoing statement is correct to the best of her knowledge, information
and belief
JAMES PAIGE
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on thisglgiday o L, _ .,, _ 2006. _ p
{ / { I I T
I 1l.t..44-” Qi -; .1 .» kaoljv
Not ' ublic