Board questions IG conclusion in case where off‑duty CPD officer allegedly used emergency lights to stop sheriff

The Civilian Police Review Board debated whether the Inspector General had enough evidence to close a complaint inconclusively after an off‑duty Columbus Division of Police officer in a decommissioned personal vehicle allegedly activated emergency lights and attempted a traffic stop on an off‑duty Franklin County sheriff.

Board members said the totality of evidence — 911 calls, the sheriff’s account, the officer’s admission that the lights sometimes worked and the presence of a light bar on a decommissioned vehicle — weighed in favor of sustaining a violation under Ohio Revised Code section 4513.17. "We were viewing the case as even if it was accidental or negligently done ... nevertheless he was responsible for that vehicle," Board member Kyle Strickland said, arguing the statute does not require intentionality.

IG staff explained their finding of inconclusive was based on conflicting or uncorroborated evidence: an off‑duty deputy said the lights could not later be made to work, a responding uniformed deputy was unable to activate the light bar when he inspected the decommissioned vehicle, and attempts to subpoena or inspect the vehicle were blocked by the union (FOP). The IG also noted an ongoing CPD criminal investigation could affect available evidence and that a tolling of the board's 90‑day review period may apply while criminal investigation proceeds.

Board members pressed for specific investigatory steps: obtain dispatch logs and 911 calls, attempt to inspect or subpoena the vehicle to test lights, and ask the IG to identify whether prior interactions between the two officers existed. The board voted to refer the related case records back to the Inspector General for further investigation and to table one juvenile case pending BWC availability.

Why it matters: the case raises policy and statutory questions about off‑duty officers operating decommissioned emergency equipment, the standard of proof for administrative findings, and how missing evidence (body‑worn footage or vehicle inspection) affects timetables for review and accountability.

Next steps: the IG will pursue additional information (including whether the 90‑day investigative timeline can be tolled), seek relevant dispatch/911 records as available, and return either with supplemental findings or a report to the board.