Suspected violations of law and policy fueled an internal investigation into the recent actions of Teague Police Officer Markeisha Cox.
A special called meeting of Teague’s City Council was held Friday, November 16, 2018 to review the circumstances of an arrest made October 17th, which lead to Officer Cox being placed on administrative leave later that month on October 26th.
Cox, accompanied by her attorney John Schneider, requested that the meeting remain open while Council was presented with the findings of the investigation.
According to Chief of Police DeWayne Philpott the internal investigation began when he received an early morning phone call October 26th from Sgt. David Keale to review “something disturbing” found on Officer Cox’s body camera footage.
Chief Philpott told the Council that after reviewing the footage he contacted Sgt. Mark Clark to conduct an internal investigation into Officer Cox’s actions.
After reviewing the incident with City Administrator Theresa Prasil and Mayor James Monks on October 26th it was decided that Officer Cox would be placed on administrative leave while the issue was investigated further.
The fifteen minute video was shown to the Council and large crowd in attendance on a projector. It showed Officer Cox arriving at the home of Deona Brackens in reference to a report of alleged theft of clothing by Brackens.
In the video, Officer Cox tells Brackens that she has been shown Facebook photographs of Brackens in wearing the clothing in question.
After a short verbal altercation between the two, Brackens begins to raise her voice and move her arms expressively at which point Officer Cox takes Brackens by the hand while telling her to step outside.
Brackens refuses and Officer Cox, now seen maintaining hold of Bracken’s forearm, produces handcuffs and informs Brackens that she is being detained.
The video shows the verbal altercation between the two continuing as Officer Cox places Brackens in handcuffs and forcefully removes her from the doorway of her home leading her to Cox’s awaiting patrol car.
After placing Brackens in the back seat, Officer Cox radios in the detainment and requests assistance from Freestone County Sheriff Deputies.
Later, as the two continue arguing, Officer Cox is heard explaining to Brackens that she was responding to what she described as a “civil matter” and was only there to question Brackens. She advised Brackens that her behavior and movements led to her being detained.
Officer Cox is heard telling Brackens that she is being arrested on the charge of resisting arrest for refusing to step outside when instructed and would be transported to Freestone County [jail].
When Deputies arrive, Officer Cox explains that when the verbal altercation started she asked Brackens to step outside in an effort to move the discussion away from a family member who was also becoming upset.
Officer Cox can be heard telling Deputies that she grabbed Brackens and instructed her to step outside when Brackens jerked away, ultimately resulting in the charge of resisting arrest.
Watch part of the body cam video here:
Upon reviewing the footage October 26th, Chief Philpott says he identified several Department policy violations regarding the officer’s use of force and search and seizure.
Chief Philpott told the Council that during an interview with the individual, Deona Brackens, Officer Cox failed to maintain composure and de-escalate the situation, thereby escalating a non-confrontational situation.
He says he also found that there was insufficient evidence of probable cause and no warrant for the arrest of Brackens, therefore making her arrest unlawful by Department policy standards.
According to Chief Philpott, the lack of probable cause and subsequent unlawful restraint of Brackens justified her use of force in resisting Officer Cox.
He told the Council that Sgt. Clark’s investigation sustained these findings.
Chief Philpott recommended terminating the employment of Officer Cox.
He told the Council that he initially considered suspension and retraining, however he believes that Officer Cox does not feel the need to be retrained.
Officer Cox’s attorney John Schneider, a former police officer himself, questioned the ten day delay in the Department’s review of the incident, calling the timeline of events unusual.
He reported that Cox was denied a request to view the body camera footage during her interview with Sgt. Clark on November 4th, constituting violations of the Officer’s rights.
Schneider told the Council that Sgt. Clark presented the request to Chief Philpott who denied Cox access to the video. He explained that state law gives officers the right to review their body camera footage before they are required to provide a statement.
Schneider says denial of that request, as well as Chief Philpott’s failure to provide Officer Cox with a copy of the complaint until the day of the special called Council meeting, Friday, November 16th, nearly a month after the incident, are clear violations of Officer Cox’s rights.
He also questioned the delay in obtaining the complaint from Brackens, asking how many times the Department made efforts to contact her before Brackens appeared at City Hall to file a complaint on Thursday, November 15th, just one day before the meeting.
Schneider addressed Chief Philpott’s belief that Officer Cox lacked probable cause in arresting Brackens. He detailed the process of an arrest, from being booked into jail to arraignment, explaining that a magistrate is provided with a probable cause affidavit to decide if the arrest was justified before setting the terms for the bond and release of the accused.
He informed the Council that he has reason to believe that this process was completed by a magistrate, therefore deeming the arrest lawful, since the details of the case were presented to the District Attorney’s office for consideration and possible prosecution.
According to Schneider, the District Attorney has decided not to file charges against Brackens.
Schneider read Aldermen the case law on investigative detainments, “Police Officers can detain an individual if they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot,” as ruled by the United States Supreme Court in Terry vs. Ohio.
Furthermore the law details that officers do not have to have a specific crime they suspect is taking place and allows officers to use force to detain the suspect if necessary.
Schneider references another body camera video of Officer Cox speaking to the complainant accusing Brackens of theft where the complainant provides proof of ownership of the clothing in question, as well as photographs of Brackens in possession of the clothing, which according to Schneider established reasonable suspicion.
To make an arrest however, officers need probable cause.
Schneider explained that Brackens refusal to cooperate provided probable cause for her arrest and the subsequent charge of resisting arrest.
“I’m not surprised that the D.A. has backed off of this – because of what the Department has done,” he said. “They’ve misunderstood their own policy.”
Schneider reiterated that officers’ are awarded authority in legal statutes and backed by rulings in state and federal courts to detain individuals on reasonable suspicion, using force if necessary.
“The court decisions have been clear. You cannot resist an officer if you’re being lawfully detained. We don’t get to do that.”
“I’m pretty astounded by the one part of the investigation that tries to say that Ms. Brackens was legally authorized to resist an officer,” he continued “You’re not legally authorized to resist an officer in this situation.”
Officer Cox was allowed time to express her feelings about the investigation.
“Honestly, I can’t believe that I’m here,” she said. “I’ve never received a discipline since I’ve worked for Teague Police Department.”
Cox related how she feels like she is being picked on by her superiors, especially Sgt. Keale who was the first to review the body camera footage.
She told the Council that her efforts to address hostile encounters with her superior officer were downplayed by the Chief and ultimately ignored causing her to feel alienated and discriminated against.
Cox told the Council that she was told that an officer was made to go to Brackens’ house seven times to attempt to obtain a complaint; actions that she believes speak to the antagonistic nature of the investigation against her.
Melissa Cranford, an attorney with the City’s legal team Messer, Rockefeller, & Fort, requested that the Council allow Chief Philpott to answer allegations made during Officer Cox’s statement.
Chief Philpott reported that, while he did not know how many times officers went to Brackens’ home, the statement against Officer Cox was obtained Thursday, November 15th when Ms. Brackens came to City Hall to file the complaint.
“I didn’t need that. This was done through an administrative review of the report. As far as I know the report was reviewed by Sgt. Keale on the 26th,” said Philpott, “Why it went from the 17th to the 26th I can only speculate.”
“What I do know is that as soon as he reviewed it he contacted me and I started the administrative investigation.”
Deona Brackens was also granted time to speak to the Council.
“I feel like I am a victim in this situation. I feel like my rights were violated. I was pulled out of my house before ever being told to come outside.”
She assured the Council that she understood the potential for confusion surrounding the interview as her sister was present and talking in the background.
Brackens stated that, had Officer Cox asked, she would have complied and stepped outside.
She refuted Officer Cox’s statement that she refused to write a complaint, stating that while an officer did come to her home several times, she was only home two of the times he tried to contact her.
She said she intended to write a complaint and had no idea that the investigation was going on until she arrived at City Hall the day before the meeting to file the complaint.
Brackens emotionally told the Council of the inconvenience the arrest and two days in jail caused her as an unemployed mother of a young child.
She explained that she is still paying on the bond for her release leaving her unable to pay for her utilities.
“I feel like I was violated and I don’t feel like she [Officer Cox] should work here anymore.”
The Council, along with their attorney Cranford and Chief Philpott, entered into an hour long executive session to decide the future of Officer Cox’s employment with the Department.
No doubt a factor in their deliberations were the countless citizens in attendance to support Officer Cox, named the Department’s Rookie of the Year in 2017 and a favorite in the community.
Although the Council only allowed for five of the many speakers signed up for the meeting’s public comments, the overall message was one of appreciation and support for the Officer.
Former Chief of Police Dan Ramsey, who hired Officer Cox during his time with the Department, may have summed up the group’s feelings saying, “I know I’m with her and I know everyone in this room is with her. We’ll just keep praying about it.”
When the Council reconvened in open session, Alderman Jerry Ballew made a motion to place Officer Cox on a thirty day suspension without pay.
Upon reinstatement with the Department, Cox must successfully complete the FTO [Field Training and Evaluation] program within six months, along with the Performance Improvement Program that includes additional training as determined by the City Administrator and the Police Chief.
Alderman Ron Rasbeary provided the second and the Council voted unanimously to approve the disciplinary action.
