Signs of Corruption in the Fayetteville Police Department

Fayetteville, N.C. – Is there corruption at the highest level in the Fayetteville Police Department? Does the Fayetteville Police Department have a Chief of Police who believes herself above the laws of this state and rules and regulations of the City of Fayetteville?

Last week several allegations surfaced regarding Fayetteville’s Chief of Police Gina Hawkins.

Several Fayetteville law enforcement officers and civilian employees contacted TPTN News to report a cover up of alleged illegalities and violations of several departmental policies and rules by Hawkins. These officers and civilians will of course remain anonymous to protect their jobs and families from retaliation.

Several Fayetteville law enforcement officers and a number of civilian employees have tried to bring Hawkin’s actions to the attention of the higher ups but have been met with all kinds of negative reactions from being ignored to threats of job loss if they continued to complain.

Fayetteville City Manager Doug Hewett can consider this article to be an official complaint to him regarding this issue on behalf of all the good law enforcement officers at the FPD, all the concerned citizens of the city of Fayetteville and of TPTN Action News. You now have your official complaint Hewitt. What are you going to do about it?

The Allegations

It’s alleged that in the early morning of Sunday, October 17, 2021, Chief of Police Hawkins was at the Island Flava Restaurant & Lounge located at 2000 Owen Dr., Fayetteville, N.C. imbibing alcoholic beverages.

Hawkins was also alleged to be in the company of Mayor Mitch Colvin with rampant speculation as to the nature of their association together at the bar in the wee hours of the morning.

Fayetteville State University was holding homecoming events that weekend. An unofficial homecoming party and after-party was scheduled for Saturday night at Island Flava Restaurant and Lounge.

Allegedly, Hawkins realized that she was too drunk to drive and contacted Fayetteville dispatchers to send a patrol unit to take her home. It is alleged that a Fayetteville patrol unit did indeed arrive and took Hawkins home.

About thirty minutes later a shooting occurred at the at the Island Flava Restaurant & Lounge that resulted in two adults being shot and taken to the hospital, one by EMS and the other by a personal vehicle. Bruce McLeod, 33, of Laurinburg, was pronounced dead at the hospital from his injuries, and Gavin Hale, 33, Laurinburg was last reported in stable condition. It is without question that these are the acts of a criminal element.

It is then alleged that Hawkins received a “mirror text” regarding the homicide and in great fear and consternation realized that it’s about to be discovered that she used her departmental vehicle for personal use, drinking at a bar, in violation of departmental policy. It is alleged that the vehicle that she had left in the parking lot of the Island Flava Restaurant & Lounge was not her personal vehicle, but her departmental vehicle assigned to her for departmental use only.

It is then alleged that even in her self-admitted state of inebriation Hawkins realized that her departmental vehicle is now trapped within the parking lot of a homicide crime scene.

Officers alleged that Hawkins arrived back at the homicide crime scene, in her personal vehicle approximately 30 minutes after she was driven home because she was self-admitted to be too drunk to drive, now clothed in a hoodie and a mask.

FPD law enforcement officers allege that when Hawkins tried to enter the crime scene to retrieve her assigned city police vehicle the officers in charge of crime scene security appropriately refused her entrance. This is because it is taught that a crime scene and all its contents are not to be disturbed until everything is photographed, logged and thoroughly investigated as to its involvement in the crime under investigation. Tampering with a crime scene is a crime in itself, no matter what the underlying reason.

It was further alleged that Hawkins, when denied entry, then pulled down her mask and demanded of the officers if they knew who she was asserting her authority as Chief of Police as a justified reason to enter a crime scene, approximately 30 minutes after she was driven home because she was self-admitted to be too drunk to drive.

It is then alleged that due to Hawkins threats and intimidation that she is then allowed into the crime scene where upon she gets into her departmental vehicle and drives away, presumably while still in a state of self-admitted inebriation.

An isolated incident or a pattern and practice?

Many Questions, No Answers,…YET!

Rules for thee, but not for me!

Is what we’re seeing here a “Rules for thee, but not for me!” attitude that’s a classic sign of toxic leadership? It certainly appears so in light of the allegations and a lack of proper investigation into the matter.

The Fayetteville Police Department has a policy, operating procedure, and rules and regulations manual online for all to see. Take note that these policies are digitally signed by Hawkins.

Did Hawkins violate the law and several FPD policies that she signed?

FPD Rules and Regulations 6.1.4 – Employees shall not interfere with or take action in cases being handled by other officers of the department or by another governmental agency unless:

1. 1. ordered to intervene by a superior officer; or
   2. the intervening officer believes that a manifest injustice would result from failure to take immediate action.

Officers shall not undertake any investigation or other official action that is not part of their regular duties without obtaining permission from their supervisor, unless the exigencies of the situation require immediate police action. Any officer taking such action must notify his immediate supervisor as soon as possible after the incident occurs.

Is Hawkins an FPD “employee”? She certainly is.

Is Hawkins bound by the same rules, regulations, written directives and operating procedures as are other FPD employees? She certainly is.

Is removing evidence from a a duly erected homicide crime scene for personal reasons interference? It certainly is.

If Hawkins, as alleged, committed these acts, did she do so with the permission of her immediate supervisor, Hewett?

If Hawkins, as alleged, committed these acts, did she notify her immediate supervisor, Hewett, as soon as possible afterwards?

If Hawkins had previously determined that she was incapable of safely driving because she was drunk , as alleged, then there is no question that she was too drunk to drive then or at any point after she had called for an officer to take her home.

Additionally noted is that FPD rules and regulations as well as Fayetteville city policies disallow operation of any city owned vehicle while under the influence of any amount of an impairing substance. The maximum amount of alcohol allowed is 0.00 BAC, not 0.08 BAC.

And FPD has a zero tolerance policy towards being impaired on duty and driving while impaired.

FPD Written Directive 3.3.3 (G)(5) – PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE – Category V Conduct

The following types of conduct are considered the most egregious and would result in termination of employment; Consumption of/intoxication by alcohol or drugs while on duty.

Did Hawkins drive to a bar in a city vehicle and drink alcohol, even to the point of inebriation?

If an appropriately conducted investigation into this matter is performed as it should be it goes without saying that Hawkins should be held to exactly the same standards as all other city law enforcement officers. The very same standards that she signed and demands applied to all subordinates.  The same standards that the citizens of Fayetteville have a reasonable expectation that all law enforcement officers are held to, especially the Chief of Police! That Hawkins is the Chief of Police certainly does not provide for any special consideration or treatment in this issue.

In fact, considering the seriousness of the matter, Hawkins should be relieved of duty, her badge and gun taken from her, and Hawkins placed on paid leave until this matter is resolved. This is the commonly approved action taken against any other officer who has been alleged to have committed far less egregious acts much less these acts. This places no undue burden on the FPD. In fact, the Chief of Police could quit tomorrow and the FPD wouldn’t even glitch. It would continue on just fine with hardly a care.

FPD Rules and Regulations – 2.0.1 – Should the Chief of Police be temporarily absent or unavailable, and no representative has been designated as Acting Chief, the senior Assistant Chief on duty shall assume the position of Acting Chief. Should the Chief of Police and Assistant Chiefs be absent or unavailable, and no representative has been designated Acting Chief, the command shall descend in the following order, unless precluded by specific circumstances:

1. 1. Major of Police on duty by date of rank;
   2. Captain of Police on duty by date of rank;
   3. Lieutenant of Police on duty by date of rank;
   4. Sergeant of Police on duty by date of rank;
   5. Senior Officer on duty by date of sworn employment.

Under these allegations of such dangerously poor decisions on the part of Hawkins, she simply can’t be allowed to remain in a position of power over such a critical city component until the truth has been sought and found in this very important issue.

FPD Written Directive 5.3.2 – AUTHORIZED USES

1. 1. The department will maintain a high visibility of police vehicles in and around the City as a deterrent to crime and will provide the maximum availability of police vehicles in order to respond to crimes in progress and other emergencies. All vehicle operations will be in accordance with N.C.G.S. 14-247 through 14-252.
   2. [As]Signed police department vehicles are official police equipment intended solely for official law enforcement duties. Assigned police vehicles may be driven to and from:

1. 1. 1. An employee’s residence and the Police Department or other designated reporting station for regular duty hours.
      2. An employee’s residence and court, when the employee is scheduled or subpoenaed to appear as a result of official police action and /or when authorized by the respective Bureau/Division Commander for a specific law enforcement purpose.
      3. An employee’s residence and a car wash or maintenance facility to service the vehicle.
      4. An employee’s residence and an approved training site.
      5. Upon approval of the appropriate Division Commander, an employee’s place of supplemental employment when that employment is law enforcement related, in accordance with Fayetteville Police Department Written Directive 2.02.

FPD Rules and Regulations 5.15  – Employees shall not operate a vehicle, on or off duty, while subject to an impairing substance. For the purpose of this rule, it is prima facie evidence that an employee is impaired when they are charged and their blood alcohol concentration is at or above the presumptive level. If an employee’s job description requires vehicle operation, and that employee registers at or above the presumptive level or refuses to submit to the required test (N.C.G.S. 20-138) thereby resulting in a suspension of their driver’s license, action shall be taken in accordance with the City Driving Standard Policy.

FPD Written Directive 5.3.3 (D)(1) Restrictions – Employees will not transport unauthorized employees or other persons except for purposes defined in the Department Rules and Regulations (15.2.0), and in City of Fayetteville Use of Vehicles For City Business Policy # 101. Employees impaired by alcohol or medication will not drive any police vehicles.

Did Hawkins, as alleged, place innocent pedestrians and other vehicle operators in danger by operating her PERSONAL motor vehicle while subject to an intoxicating substance?

Did Hawkins, as alleged, place innocent pedestrians and other vehicle operators in danger by operating a FAYETTEVILLE CITY motor vehicle while subject to an intoxicating substance?

Did Hawkins, as alleged, waste taxpayer dollars in the form of gas and unnecessary wear and tear on a city vehicle just for her personal convenience to drive to a bar and get drunk?

Did Hawkins frequent a bar known to cater to a criminal element such as homicidal individuals?

FPD Rules and Regulations – 4.0 ASSOCIATION

4.0.1 Employees shall avoid regular or continuous associations or dealing with persons whom they know, or should know, are persons under criminal investigation or indictment and those who have a reputation in the community or the department for present involvement in felonious or criminal behavior. The exception would be, as necessary to the performance of official duties, or where unavoidable because of other personal relationships of the employees.

4.0.2 Employees shall not knowingly visit, enter or frequent a house of prostitution, gambling house or establishment wherein the laws of the United States, the state or the local jurisdiction are regularly violated except in the performance of duty or while acting under proper and specific order from a supervisor.

Did Hawkins, as alleged, drive to a bar in a city vehicle, drink alcohol, and consort with a homicidal criminal element with the tacit approval of Colvin who also appears to be consorting with the same homicidal criminal element?

For that matter, was Hawkins, as alleged, hanging around with a known criminal like Colvin in violation of FPD Rule and Regulation 4.0.1? There is no question that Colvin is a known convicted criminal. The FPD rule is clear, you don’t hang around with a person who has a reputation of “criminal behavior”.

Does Hawkins have any connection to the victims or suspects? On whose word? Hers? Or a reliable witness?

Did Hawkins attempt to enter a crime scene incognito?

Did Hawkins, as alleged, dress in a hoodie and mask for the express purpose of removing her departmental vehicle from the parking lot of a homicide scene unidentified? If so, why? Is this not in itself a non-verbal admission of knowledge of wrong-doing?

Did Hawkins intentionally corrupt a crime scene?

FPD Rules and Regulations 8.0.9 – Property or evidence which has been discovered, gathered or received in connection with departmental functions, will be handled and processed in accordance with established departmental procedures.

Employees shall not convert to their own use, manufacture, conceal, destroy, remove, tamper with or withhold any property or evidence in connection with an investigation or other police action, except in accordance with established departmental procedures.

Did Hawkins, as alleged, intentionally corrupt a crime scene by removing a piece of the crime scene that may have contained any number of things that would have been relative to the crime such as fingerprints of a passing suspect, minute blood splatters, a dash cam recording possibly reflecting suspects or victims or other persons of interest.

What about the simple fact that the vehicle’s presence in the parking lot is evidence in itself of Hawkins’ alleged presence at a homicide scene and that a statement needs to be taken from her about what she saw, heard, or knew about what happened in the bar in the minutes leading up to the homicide?

And what about the requirement for Hawkins to render a “follow-up” reflecting her alleged entry into the crime scene, her actions in the crime scene, and what she removed from the crime scene and why?

And what about: Omitting or misrepresenting evidence or information required to be disclosed under discovery laws. G.S. 15A-903(d)? Is the homicide detective and all the on-scene law enforcement officers now expected to leave out of their criminal incident reports the alleged fact that Hawkins’ city assigned vehicle was found at the scene of a homicide?

Do those officers who allegedly initially refused Hawkins entry into the crime scene leave out of their reports that she came to the crime scene incognito dressed in a hoodie and mask, demanded entry and left the scene with a piece of evidence, her city vehicle, as alleged?

If, as alleged, Hawkins did commit these acts, what will be the effect on the homicide case in a court of law? The defendant’s attorneys are not likely to miss this breach of the crime scene and if Hawkins did as alleged, her actions could lead to reasonable doubt and the release of murderers who should have been convicted but for the alleged actions of Hawkins.

There was never a possibility that corruption of any kind in the FPD would be allowed to go unremarked because that is simply not the way of the good men and women of the FPD who serve their citizens. Many have been the times that FPD law enforcement officers have stood up and risked their jobs to do the right thing. That several officers and civilian employees contacted TPTN News about this issue is proof enough that something is amiss and that there is a desperate need for a fair and impartial investigation by an objective neutral party to get to the truth so that appropriate action can be taken.

If these allegations are found to be true, an argument can be easily made that Hawkins committed the crime of;

N.C.G.S. §14-223. Resisting officers.

If any person shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

Elements

Also of great concern is if Hawkins did as alleged, did Hawkins have some kind of connection or relationship with either the suspects or the victims that she’s trying to cover up?

If Hawkins did as alleged, does this mean that Hawkins is in possession of some information important to the investigation that Hawkins fears being revealed or fears the reasons for her even having the knowledge in the first place?

These are questions that must be answered for the citizenry of Fayetteville, and more importantly the FPD law enforcement officers, to have any confidence in Hawkins.

Did Hawkins in a state of inebriation, no matter how slight, threaten and/or intimidate city employees with her official position?

If, as alleged, Hawkins realized that she wasn’t getting into the crime scene unidentified, did Hawkins use her official position to corrupt a crime scene for personal reasons, to cover up the fact that she had allegedly, in violation of her very own policies, drove a city vehicle to a bar and got drunk.

FPD Rules and Regulations – 8.0.1 Employees shall not use their official position, identification or departmental uniform for:

(a) Personal or financial or material gain;
(b) Obtaining privileges not otherwise available to them except in the performance of their duty;
(c) Avoiding the consequences of illegal acts,
(d) Personal benefit from officers of lesser rank, whether in the same chain of command or not.

Another consideration is who was the supervisor on scene that folded and allowed the allegedly drunken Hawkins into the crime scene? Which supervisor let their badge become tarnished from sucking up to the allegedly drunk boss to incur favor rather than do the right thing and say “Ma’am, go home, you’re drunk.” and have her driven home again. Which supervisor valued their personal agenda over their oath of office? Which supervisor failed to report Hawkins’s actions to Hewett as required by FPD Rules and Regulations – 6.7.2? 

To be sure, it’s a serious strain on credulity that anyone would believe that there was even one law enforcement officer on the road that morning that hadn’t heard that Hawkins had to be taken home because she was too drunk to drive about ten minutes after she called for a ride. It’s highly likely that State Troopers in Raleigh were aware of that little bit of information fifteen minutes after she called for a ride.

If, as alleged, Hawkins committed these acts, who is this supervisor who has proven that Hawkins’ toxic leadership has had a disastrous effect on the proper supervision of the FPD?

Was Hawkins essentially “Drunk on Duty”?

One question that certainly needs answered is whether Hawkins is guilty of being drunk on duty since she is alleged to have used her position as the Chief of Police to gain improper and possibly illegal access to a crime scene for the purpose of improperly, and possibly, illegally changing and corrupting the crime scene during an investigation of a murder.

At the moment that she identified herself as the Chief of Police and demanded access to the crime scene she became the highest ranking officer at the crime scene automatically incurring the status of “On Duty” and therefore charged with the responsibility of maintaining the crime scene in a pristine and unaltered status until the completion of the investigation.

That it’s alleged that Hawkins had only minutes before called for an officer to drive her home because she was too intoxicated to drive makes it very obvious that Hawkins, by her own admission, was drunk on duty the very moment that she asserted authority and demanded access to the crime scene.

FPD Written Directive 3.3.3 (G) – PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE – Category V Conduct

The following types of conduct are considered the most egregious and would result in termination of employment

1. 1. 1. Acceptance of a bribe or gratuity for permitting an unlawful act.
      2. Failure/refusal to submit to drug testing/positive urinalysis results.
      3. Falsification of any document.
      4. Felony, adjudicated guilty of. This also includes conviction of any misdemeanor that would result in forfeiture of the employee’s ability to operate a city owned vehicle
      5. Consumption of/intoxication by alcohol or drugs while on duty.
      6. Involvement in a crime of “moral turpitude”.
      7. Racially derogatory terms or slurs directed toward employees or citizens.
      8. Untruthfulness (verbally or in writing).
      9. Use of force, excessive force that is more serious than a Category IV incident.

Is a Chief of Police in a self-admitted state of intoxication even allowed to issue any orders or have a reasonable expectation to be obeyed, especially at the scene of a crime, much less a capital crime?

Who Will Investigate?

Now, mind you, these are all allegations that have not been investigated and proven. Nor have they been disproved and that is the problem.

Who is going to investigate this issue and resolve it to the satisfaction of, no, not the city council or even the mayor, but of the citizens of the city of Fayetteville, and just as important, of the employees under Hawkins’ command. It is the citizens and employees who are deserving of, and demand answers to all these questions.

The Fayetteville Police Department’s policies suggest that it is the City Manager who is responsible for such an investigation. But is this really a satisfactory solution? There seems to be quite a bit of conflict of interest involved with this idea. After all, all this really boils down to is the City of Fayetteville investigating itself. Does anybody really believe that the city is going to come down on any issue against itself?

FPD Rules and Regulations – 6.1.2 – Should the matter involve the Chief of Police, all actions shall be reported to the City Manager.

FPD Rules and Regulations – 6.7.2 Misconduct Known to Departmental Personnel – Employees shall report a fellow employee’s violation of a law, rule or regulation, policy or procedure, general or special order. All such violations shall be reported in writing or verbally within twenty-four hours to an on-duty supervisor in the department with a copy forwarded to the appropriate Division Commander. Any violation on the part of the Chief of Police shall be reported to the City Manager of the City of Fayetteville. An employee is protected from retaliation only if the employee brings the alleged unlawful activity, policy, or practice to the attention of FPD and provides the FPD with a reasonable opportunity to investigate and correct the alleged unlawful activity. FPD will not retaliate against employees who disclose to a supervisor any activity, policy, or practice of FPD that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of a law, or a rule, or regulation mandated pursuant to law or is in violation of a clear mandate of public policy concerning the health, safety, welfare, or protection of the environment.

The employees of the Fayetteville Police Department, sworn and unsworn, ARE bringing “the alleged unlawful activity, policy, or practice to the attention of FPD”  only they’re taking the wise precaution of doing so via this TPTN News article thus removing any temptation on the part of the FPD command staff to attack them professionally or personally.

And FPD and the City of Fayetteville are certainly being given a “reasonable opportunity to investigate and correct the alleged unlawful activity”  and logically that begins with placing Hawkins on paid suspension until this matter is resolved.

Further, no “FPD will not retaliate against employees who disclose to”  their superiors and the FPD as a whole via TPTN News these alleged egregious actions of Chief Gina V. Hawkins because not only does TPTN News subscribe to the mandate that under the Inter-American Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, which states in Principle 8 that “every social communicator has the right to keep his/her source of information, notes, personal and professional archives confidential”, TPTN News takes the extra measures of providing a method by which tips are received anonymously and even TPTN doesn’t know “who” provided the tip. We do this on purpose. Can’t demand from us what we don’t possess. 

It clearly seems that the interests of the citizens of Fayetteville would be better served if the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation were tasked with this investigation just like they are in a police related homicide. The issues at stake here are just as serious considering it involves a potentially toxic Chief of Police. Some investigations are simply just not appropriately kept in-house due to their seriousness. 

FPD Operating Procedure 1.0 (H)(1) – Internal Investigative Procedure – Special Situations – An allegation of misconduct complaint against the Chief of Police shall be investigated by expert investigators outside of the Fayetteville Police Department acquired by and operating under the auspices of the City Manager. Any clarification on what type of allegation of misconduct will be investigated will be determined by the City Manager and City Attorney.

One would think that any clarifications on what type of allegation of misconduct to be investigated should, and would, be better determined by the City of Fayetteville Ethics Commission who has no “dog in the fight” like the city manager or city attorney. And the Ethics Commission is certainly more than qualified to make such determinations seeing how it’s comprised of;

a. One member from the Cumberland County Bar Association
b. One member from the Sandhills Chapter of Certified Public Accountants
c. One University College Selection
d. Two General Citizenry

At least they won’t be tempted to minimize or sabotage an investigation over “losing face” having made a very bad employee selection or in an attempt to lighten their workload or deflect the possibility of legitimate lawsuits over the unethical or illegal actions of a city department head.

Are Hawkins’ actions ethical?

LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS

AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all persons to liberty, equality and justice.

I WILL keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.

I WILL never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.

I RECOGNIZE the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession – law enforcement.

Additionally this seem to clearly fall under the umbrella of the Fayetteville Ethics Commission.

Here’s the link to the City of Fayetteville’s Ethics Complaint Form

If you desire to file a complaint about this issue with the Fayetteville Police Department, Here’s a link to their electronic submission form.

Feel free to copy and paste any portion of, or all, of this TPTN News article into your complaint that you desire.

This work is designed to provide practical and useful information on the subject matter covered. However, it it presented with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, or any other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Under the rules, regulations, policies, written directives and operating procedures of the City of Fayetteville and the Fayetteville Police Department a complaint and allegations of wrong-doing do not carry with them, unlike in a court of law, a presumption of innocence. Nor do they carry with them a presumption of guilt. It is ONLY through a thorough and impartial investigation that guilt or innocence can be determined and the subject of allegations absolved or punished. A failure to properly investigate such complaints and allegations does everyone a disservice from the accused employee to the concerned citizenry.