DENVER — The Colorado Bureau of Investigation is asking for a third-party review to look into how it handled an incident where one of its agents was captured on body-worn camera using a racial slur during a phone call, Denver7 Investigates has confirmed through multiple sources.
Sources say that review will focus on CBI's investigation after discovering the racial slur on body-worn camera and on allegations the agent responsible received preferential treatment as a dividend of a long-standing friendship with the agency's director.
A CBI spokesperson would not confirm the investigation on Monday.
Additionally, Denver7 Investigates has learned that CBI leadership waited more than five months to alert state district attorneys that their agent, Doug Pearson, may have a credibility issue if called to testify in court.
CBI sent notifications, often known as Brady letters, to all 22 district attorneys on Oct. 15 regarding Pearson, stating that there is "information in the Bureau's possession that may affect is credibility in court."
Those letters were sent 13 days after Denver7 Investigates first aired a report on the racial slur captured on body-worn camera.
However, an internal investigation into Pearson was completed roughly five months earlier. A 20-page internal affairs report on the incident is dated April 29.
Colorado statute requires law enforcement agencies to notify district attorney offices if one of their officers has a credibility concern, including a “demonstrated bias based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, national origin or any other protected class.”
The law also states that notification must be “prompt.”
“I'm a big fan of the CBI. I have worked with a lot of these guys and gals for many years. I think they do good work, but this is unacceptable,” said George Brauchler, former district attorney for the 18th Judicial District and the district attorney-elect for the newly created 23rd Judicial District.
While state law does not define a time frame of what would be considered prompt, both Brauchler and Stan Garnett, former district attorney for the 20th Judicial District in Boulder, said that five months does not meet that definition.
“That timeline is a lengthy timeline, a concerning timeline,” Garnett said.
“I can't imagine anything that would take five months that could be defined as prompt in this circumstance,” Brauchler said. “If an investigation is completed and they have come to a conclusion, prompt might be five hours or five days, but it cannot be five months.”
Denver7 Investigates first reported on the investigation into Pearson’s use of the racial slur on Oct. 2. Pearson accidentally activated his body-worn camera on Feb. 14 while on a stakeout. The 37-minute recording included a private phone call to a woman. During the call, he used a slur against Black people when opining on potential suspects of a shooting in Kansas City during the Super Bowl victory parade.
Multiple inside sources, who spoke to Denver7 anonymously because they feared retaliation, said that Pearson was receiving preferential treatment because of a long friendship and business partnership with CBI Director Chris Schaefer.
Watch this report from Denver7 Investigates below.
Those sources described Schaefer and Pearson as close friends and said that they regularly travel together and speak at conventions for law enforcement groups. A CBI spokesperson also stated in an email that the two have a “decades-long friendship.”
One source, who interviewed with Denver7 Investigates in silhouette, said that rank-and-file members of CBI are “angry” and “frustrated” by the response to this incident and they felt that any other member of the department would have been fired.
CBI said that the findings against Pearson were “sustained,” and that he was reprimanded, but did not disclose any details on a punishment. Insiders said Pearson was not suspended and that he kept working cases after the investigation completed. Copies of Pearson’s timecards, obtained by Denver7 Investigates, also show that he did not have any time off for disciplinary reasons.
Since Denver7 Investigates’ initial story, both Schaefer and Colorado Department of Public Safety Director Stan Hilkey sent emails to staff to address the situation.
Part of Schaefer’s email noted, “the behavior in question was addressed swiftly and appropriately.” While Hilkey stated that “there’s no excuse for this behavior.”
But Garnett expressed concern that these Brady letters were not sent until after Denver7 Investigates’ initial story.
“Why they didn't release this letter until two weeks after your story, I don't know, but it doesn't look good,” he said.
Denver7 obtained all 22 of the letters sent to the DA offices. Each read the same, but were addressed to the individual district attorneys. Below is a copy of one of them.
Three of those district attorneys disclosed those letters to Colorado's Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) department and notifications now appear when Pearson is searched in POST's database.
Denver7 Investigates has since learned that Pearson was recently reassigned and has taken a desk job with the Colorado Information Analysis Center.
CBI leadership has continued to decline interview requests, but provided a statement on the letters that noted this was the first time the agency had to consider if the state law on disclosure regarding bias applied to an agent’s conduct. It added that it met its obligations under Colorado law. The agency's full statement is at the end of this story.
Brauchler was critical of CBI's decision to not speak to the media in the wake of these stories.
“I am a Chris Schaefer fan, and if it's him making that decision, my advice to my friend would be, 'Chris, step up in front of the camera, do this thing, take your medicine and let's move on,' because that's what a leader does," he said.
The full CBI statement:
“The Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is committed to a culture of character, honesty, trust, and transparency. This incident was the first time CBI has had to determine whether Colorado’s credibility disclosure requirements related to bias applied to an agent’s conduct. After thoughtful consideration, we determined that the most appropriate course of action was to notify all District Attorney offices in Colorado of our agent’s use of biased language. In doing so, CBI ensured that all potentially impacted parties would be aware of the issue and fully met its obligations under Colorado law.
