WILLIAM V. SHERER II, MAYOR June 27, 2024 Nicholas Casto, Patrolman City of Canton Police Department Dear Officer Casto, Enclosed please find my decision in reference to your hearing on June 21, 2024. In light of your termination effective immediately, please coordinate with your Union Leadership to facilitate the return of any city- issued equipment still in your possession Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, hn brie TM Peay Andrea M. Perry Director of Public Safety cc: John Gabbard, Chief of Police Viviane Duffrin, Deputy Counsel, Law Sean Flaherty, CPPA President Christina Skondras, Director of Personnel File 218 Cleveland Ave, SW - Canton, OH 44702 Phone: 330.489.3283 « www.cantanahio.govMARS alte Ne) ay DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER Re: Nicholas Casto, Patrolman Hearing date: June 21, 2024 Hearing officer: Andrea M. Perry, Director of Publie Safety Present for Canton: Vivianne Duffrin, Deputy Chief Counsel John Gabbard, Police Chief Steven Shackle, Lieutenant Present for the CPPA: Sean Flaherty, CPPA President Mary Lou Sukula, Attomey for the CPPA JT Hampton, Patrolman Michael Callahan, Attomey for Casto 1, Background On May 30, 2024, at about 8:46 p.m., Patrolman Nicholas Casto was assisting officers with a crowd following a traffic stop and arrest in the 1100 block of 16th St NW. Kieven Conver was standing in the front yard of his house when he began yelling at officers and Casto’s K-9 partner, who were in the street about 30 feet away. Officers had told Conver to cease his behavior, which distracted and delayed officers in their official duties. Conver yelled toward Casto and his K-9 partner, “Shut up you bitch.” Believing Conver was illegally harassing his K-9, Casto told officers to arrest Conver. Officers Hampton, Paris, and Yepes grabbed Conver and tried to handcuff him. About three seconds later, Hampton took Conver to the ground, About seven seconds after that, the three officers had Conver prone on the ground with the hands behind his back. That’s when Casto deployed his K-9. Conver kept both hands behind his back even as the K.9 bit his right arm. After the K-9 was removed, Hampton handcuffed Conver. This was captured on multiple body-worn cameras (BWC). Conver was arrested for resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and harassing a police dog— all misdemeanors. He was also arrested for obstructing official business for being disorderly during a traffic stop—originally a felony but later amended to a second-degree misdemeanor. In his required Use-of-Force Report that he submitted after the incident, Casto wrote that Conver “did push officers away and resisted arrest by pulling away.” He wrote that “it was determined that all efforts to get Conver into custody were exhausted by the three officers that were unable to control the arrested subject...” He continued, “The three officers disengaged from [Conver] as control was unable to be taken.” Casto also wrote, “[t]he exhausted officers removed themselves from Conver as they realized they couldn’t control him.” Casto “perceived a serious 218 Cleveland Ave. SW - Canton, OH 44702 CANTON Phone: 330.489.3283 : wwwicantonohio.gov Sane ee ee a5threat of harm due to three officers not being able to take him into custody.” Finally, Casto wrote, “[iJt wasn’t until the K9 was deployed that I observed Conver placing his hands behind his back.” The next morning, the Chief put Casto on administrative leave while the incident was under investigation by Lieutenant Shackle of the Office of Professional Standards. Shackle completed his investigation on June 5 and sustained the following violations: Rule of Conduct 438 (General Orders and Duties); Policy 300.5 (Use of Force); Policy 318.6 (Canines (Apprehension Guidelines)); Policy 318.6.1 (Canines (Preparation for Deployment)) ‘The Chief reviewed Shackle’s investigation and agreed with his conclusions. In his June letter, the Chief found that Casto’s actions were “clearly outside of the training you received as well as our policies, rules and regulations.” The Chief found another rule violation: Rule 600, which requires reports to be truthful. The Chief found that Casto “included demonstrably false information in your written account of the arrest in order to justify a level of force that was clearly unjustified.” As a result, the Chief recommended Casto’s termination. According to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, I held a pre-disciplinary hearing on June 21. Casto appeared with his attorney and union representative, He was allowed to respond to the alleged violations and provide any information for my consideration, 2. Rules and Policies Policy 318.6—Canines (Apprehension Guidelines): A canine may be used to...apprehend a suspect if the canine handler reasonably believes that the individual has committed, is committing, or is threatening to commit any serious offense and if any of the following conditions exist: (a) There a reasonable belief the suspect poses an imminent threat of violence or serious harm to the public, any officer, or the handler. (b) The suspect is physically resisting or threatening to resist arrest and the use of the canine reasonably appears to be necessary to overcome such resistance. Policy 318.6.1—Canines (Preparation for Deployment): Prior to the use of a canine to...apprehend any suspect, the canine handler and/or the supervisor on-scene should carefully consider all pertinent information reasonably available at the time. The information should include, but is not limited to: (a) The nature and seriousness of the suspected offense, (b) Whether violence or weapons were used or anticipated. (©) The degree of resistance or threatened resistance, if any, the suspect has shown,(@) The suspect’s known or perceived age. (©) The potential of injury to the officers or the public caused by the suspect if the canine is not utilized. (f) Any potential danger to the public and/or other officers at the scene if the canine is released, (g) The potential for the suspect to escape or flee if the canine is not utilized. Policy 300.5—Use of Force. (b) Force must be reasonable. An officer may only use the amount of force that reasonable appears necessary given the facts and circumstances perceived by the officer at the time of the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose. The reasonableness of force will be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the time of the incident. Any evaluation of reasonableness must allow for the fact that the officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force that reasonably appears necessary in a particular situation, with limited information, and in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. ee Factors: ‘immediacy and severity of the threat to the officer; + seriousness of the suspected offense or reason for the contact with the subject; + whether the suspect appears to be resisting, attempting to evade arrest by flight or is attacking the officer. ex * officer/subject factors (e.g. age, size, relative strength, skill, injuries, level of fatigue, number of officers and subjects); * the degree to which the subject has been restrained and their ability to resist despite being restrained. Rule of Conduct—Treatment of Persons Subject to Arrest 500 Use of Force (A) 1, No officer shall use more force in any situation than is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances, 2. Force shall only be applied in accordance with law and established Department policy and procedure. Rule of Conduct—Departmental Records, Reports, and Property 600 Departmental Reports (C): Employees shall submit all necessary reports on time and in accordance with established Department policy and procedures. Reports submitted by employeesshall be truthful and complete, and no employee shall knowingly enter or cause to be entered any inaccurate, false or improper information, 3. Analysis Policies 318.6, 318.6.1, 300.5 and Rule 500 are similar and can be analyzed at the same time. Itis true, as Shackle noted in his Executive Summary, that officers were dealing with a “hostile crowd” following the traffic stop. It is also true that Conver contributed to that chaos, especially cartier when his conduct distracted officers and delayed them in performing their duties. Still, the circumstances did not justify Casto’s use of his K-9. Firs, there is no evidence that Conver posed an imminent threat of violence or serious harm to anyone. He did not have a Weapon or access to one. Nor did he attack officers or threaten them with violence. Second, if Conver resisted arrest after he was taken to the ground and put in the prone position, it is not evident on the BWC. Third, Conver’s alleged crimes were mostly nonviolent misdemeanors. Regardless of whether obstructing was charged as a low-level felony or a misdemeanor, it was nonviolent. Fourth, because three officers had Conver prone with his hands behind his back, he was not likely to escape. Fifth, for that same reason, there was no danger to the officers or public if the K-9 was not used. Sixth, to the contrary, it appears that the K-9 might easily have injured the three officers trying to handcuff Conver. Finally, the BWC shows that Conver, who was prone on the ground with his hands behind his back, was outnumbered by three police officers who appeared to be close to handcuffing him, In short, few if any factors set forth in the above policies and rules weighed in favor of Casto using his K-9 to arrest Conver. As a result, I agree with the Chief that Casto violated Policies 318.6, 318.6.1, 300.5, and Rule 500 Lalso find he violated Rule 600, which prohibits officers from knowingly submitting inaccurate, false or improper information in a required report. Casto’s report claimed that Conver “pushed officers away and resisted arrest by pulling away” and that he “continuously pushed officers away.” The BWC does not support his version. At no point can I sce Conver “pushing officers away.” Casto also reported that the three officers were “exhausted” and that “it was determined that all efforts to get Conver into custody had been exhausted.” Yet only about 10 seconds lapsed from the time officers put their hands on Conver to the time Casto deployed his K-9, Also, at the hearing Officer Hampton was asked if he was exhausted and he replied that he felt, “overwhelmed” but not physically exhausted. Finally, Casto wrote in his report that “It wasn’t until the K-9 was deployed that I observed Conver placing his hands behind his back.” But it was clear that Conver's hands were behind his back before Casto deployed his K-9. This false narrative in a required written report is a clear violation of Rule 600.4. Conclusion Having found the above violations, I turn to the question of the appropriate level of discipline. Chief Gabbard has recommended that Casto be terminated. The Union argues for a less severe penalty, pointing out Casto’s positive evaluations and good work history. Ihave considered Casto’s positive evaluations and good work history, including his disciplinary history. But I must also consider the seriousness of the violations. I am also considering the fact that the day before this incident, Officer Casto received an in-depth training review related to his K-9 deployment through the Bureau of Professional Development. The Chief had also issued discipline regarding an inappropriate K-9 deployment. Finally, I considered my duty to the community and the officers who honorably serve it. ‘This is not an easy decision. Nor is it one I take lightly. But based on the totality of the circumstances, I am terminating Casto’s employment effective June 27, 2024. sincerely, Si - “My pela Director of Public Safety ce: Vivianne Duffrin, Deputy Chief Counsel John Gabbard, Chief Steven Shackle, Lieutenant Sean Flaherty, President CPPA May Lou Sukula, CPPA attorney