RFP Staff
♦ Rory Collin’s deposition features some very curious answers by Collins on pages 206 through 211.
On page 206 line 11 Collins states Sergeant Mahaley was terminated for striking a subordinate officer. (Officer Lancaster happens to be a minority policeman) Officer Lane reported his memorandum showed Sergeant Mahaley appeared to target minorities and females. When Collins was asked what he reported to the Post he initially claims, “I don’t have any idea — what are you talking about” (Page 206 line 13).
Collins then goes on through the rest of page 206 and all of page 207 first claiming memory problems, then blaming a group decision before finally settling on the determination striking a subordinate was in fact merely inappropriate reprimanding (lines 9 -10). Then Collins, who recalled truthfulness, proclaims again in line 13 – 14 he can’t remember again. When asked directly if he reported Lancaster was assaulted (lines 19 – 22) his memory again fails.
On page 208 lines 11 – 17 Collins admits it is plausible Mahaley would bully other officers in training. This was exactly what Officer Lane reported in the initial memorandum concerning the TASER training where Collins “determined” he was untruthful.
On page 209 lines 6 – 9 Collins was asked if Lt. Efird instructed officers to “get together and get their stories straight”. Collins stated directly “I don’t know what you’re talking about” Copies of an email obtained under Freedom of Information Act (before the city began refusing to obey statute regarding FOIA) were produced which showed this had in fact happened. Suddenly Collins recalls this after the copies are shown to him.
(page 210 lines 2 -3) How many of Collins “don’t recalls” and claims counter to other officers’ accounts might be cleared up by paper copies? During Officer Garry Mills disability lawsuit against the city Collins had a similar “memory failure” where he testified under oath Mills had not submitted a memo concerning being injured. The memo was produced, with Collin’s signature at the bottom, and Collins was able to recall it. Collins’ story continues on page 210, lines 16 -23, where he testified that, after Lt. Efird instructed officers to “get their stories straight” on an official Internal Affairs investigation. Efird remains in his Internal Affairs role. Collins states his role has ‘changed now’.
On page 211, lines 3 – 6, Collins explains he now has captains doing the major investigations. Further down, line 13 – 15 he states Efird is doing “data entry and stuff like that”. If Efird is entering the data doesn’t he control what goes into the report? If he has a past history of instructing folks to “get their stories straight” why would he have ANY contact with an Internal Affairs document? Why is he being paid to head Internal Affairs if his responsibilities could be met by a secretary and allow additional manpower on the understaffed streets? Is his position a reward for praising Collins? What investigative history does Lt. Efird have? He is in one of the most sensitive positions in the department; has he ever worked a major case before?
Lt. Andy Efird’s Internal Affairs critical duties are detailed on the City of Salisbury’s website:INTERNAL AFFAIRS: The Administrative Lieutenant investigates or assigns investigations of allegations against department members that are of a serious nature. These allegations may include excessive force, civil rights violations, corruption, criminal misconduct, etc. Other command personnel normally investigate complaints of a minor nature (discourtesy, misfeasance of duty, etc.). The Administrative Lieutenant controls and directs these complaints by assigning them for investigation, providing them to the Chief of Police for review and maintaining complaint files. He conducts an analysis of citizen complaints annually.”
Chief Collins email to Officer Lancaster:
