Police discipline in D.C. is a complicated, drawn out, and opaque process. The Metropolitan Police Department has been historically stingy with the public when it comes to details of its officers’ misdeeds. Reforms in recent years have peeled back the curtain on serious and fatal incidents. But a large part of the disciplinary process still remains a secret. 

Through a Freedom of Information Act request, City Paper has received all of the Office of Police Complaints investigations with sustained violations, as well as officers’ names, that were forwarded to now-former Chief Robert Contee. During his two-and-a-half-year tenure, seven officers have at least two sustained complaints. Without public exposure, MPD is left to police itself with little accountability.

D.C.’s public defenders have an up-close view of this sort of police misconduct.

“Based on what our clients experience and on documents to which we have access, we know that MPD too often fails to impose consequences on officers found to have committed serious misconduct,” Public Defender Service general counsel Laura Hankins writes in an emailed statement. Hankins adds that MPD is aware of the misconduct, but “rather than address the issues, MPD continues to deploy the problematic officers.”

“We know firsthand that sustained complaints against officers are just the tip of the iceberg,” Hankins continues. “MPD engages in terrorizing misconduct—from assaultive behavior to treating D.C. residents with disrespect and flagrant, racially-charged contempt—that does not even get reported because too many people know that MPD ultimately will protect even its worst officers rather than stand with the residents they have sworn to serve. The failures of MPD and USAO leadership to meaningfully address officer misconduct erodes the community’s trust.”

The disciplinary outcomes listed below for these seven repeat offenders apply to each case as a whole, but in cases involving multiple officers, it’s unclear from the publicly available information which consequence applied to which officer. According to MPD’s general orders, discipline falls into two categories: corrective action (a PD 750, letter of prejudice, and official reprimand) and the harsher adverse action (fines, suspensions, reduction in rank, and termination). The “education-based development” that some officers receive does not constitute discipline under MPD’s policies.

Anthony Delborrell and John Bewley

Case no. 20-0742

A man steps outside his Southeast home to retrieve his mail. He’s carrying his registered firearm with him in a fanny pack. As he walks back inside, three officers approach him. The man admits that he has a gun and says his license is in the fanny pack.

The officers immediately handcuff the man, and Officer John Bewley starts to go through his wallet, over the man’s objections. “Come on. I’m just checking my mailbox. Sir, you didn’t even give me a chance to tell you, and I got my license right here,” the man says.

The officers eventually uncuff him, but they confiscate his gun for “safekeeping” because it wasn’t in the proper holster. The man says he is upset with the officers and asks for their cards, and Bewley provides his. Delborrell, who had turned his body camera off, says he doesn’t have any cards. When asked again, Delborrell lambasts the man: “No, but I’ll tell you what we didn’t do though. How about this? We didn’t lock your ass up. How about that? You cool with that? Because you wanna be on man time? Let’s be on man time. I’m sick of that, bro. Man up, dog. You know you was wrong.” 

OPC decision: Delborrell handcuffed the man without an articulable threat, failed to identify himself, and used disrespectful and inappropriate language. Bewley searched the man’s wallet but did not have consent or a warrant.

“[Delborrell’s] explanations for his behavior suggest he does not understand what professional behavior for an officer is. In response to a polite question for his card, [Delborrell] launched into a tirade against Complainant that had nothing to do with Complainant’s request and everything to do with [Delborrell’s] clear annoyance at Complainant thinking he had the right to ask for his identification,” the complaint examiner writes in their final report. 

Bewley claimed to OPC that obtaining a concealed carry license qualifies as implied consent to search, which the complaint examiner determined was incorrect.

“Rather than strengthen police-community relations, his behavior deteriorated it,” the complaint examiner writes. “[Delborrell] stated he is only human and not perfect, but as someone with a license to carry a gun and enforce the laws of this city, he is held to a higher standard of behavior.”

Discipline: Form PD62-E, education-based development, and a letter of prejudice

Anthony Delborrell and John Bewley

Case no. 21-0233

Officers Anthony Delborrell and John Bewley are riding in an unmarked vehicle in Southeast with two other officers. Delborrell suspects that a man walking his dog is carrying a gun based on, he claims, a bulge in the man’s jacket pocket. In all, eight officers approach the man and ask to search him. The officers also claim the man was “blading his body” and increased his walking pace when he saw the officers. The man refuses the search, but the officers pat him down anyway. OPC examiner Jennifer Fischer’s report says the “[body worn camera] footage confirms there was not a bulge in his jacket pocket,” nor did it show that he was blading his body in a suspicious manner or increasing his pace.

“There simply was no reason to believe under the circumstances present here that [the man] had a weapon on his person, as there is no visible bulge,” the complaint examiner says in their report. “It is, moreover, highly suspect that the officers saw a bulge from their cruiser particularly in dim lighting.”

The officers, through their union representative, defended their actions. The rep said the neighborhood is “plagued with violence” and that Delborrell and Bewley are “highly trained” in spotting concealed firearms. But the complaint examiner says that’s not enough to stop and frisk someone.

“To decide otherwise means that every individual walking a dog and minding their own business in a high crime area would be subject to being stopped and frisked,” the complaint examiner says, ultimately ruling that the officers illegally frisked the man.

Discipline: 15-day suspension, 10-day suspension, education-based development, and Form PD 750.

Dennis Sfoglia and Eric Farris

Case no. 22-0198

Officers Dennis Sfoglia and Eric Farris stop a man driving a vehicle because he rolled through a stop sign. They also suspected his window tints were too dark. The man’s license and registration are up to date, but the officers ask him to step out of the car; he declines Sfoglia’s request to search his vehicle, so the officer calls for a K9. While they wait, Sfoglia claims he sees a bulge in the man’s coat and pats him down over his objections. He finds nothing.

The dog arrives and makes a positive “hit” for a weapon in the vehicle. Officers search the vehicle, but they find nothing. They give the man a “verbal warning,” remove the handcuffs, and send him on his way. They never measured his window tint.

OPC decision: The officers illegally prolonged the traffic stop in order for a K9 to arrive and therefore should not have searched the car; they illegally patted him down; and they should not have handcuffed him. 

The driver’s previous arrest is not sufficient grounds for suspicion of gun possession and he should have been allowed to leave after the stop sign and window tint issues were resolved. “Here, the officers’ actions went beyond what is permitted by the law and regulations,” the complaint examiner writes in the report.

The officers claimed the man was acting “excessively nervous,” but the OPC complaint examiner says the body camera footage “does not support a finding that [the complainant] answered questions evasively or acted excessively nervous.” The officers also claimed they saw a “significant-size bulge” on the man’s right side, but the OPC complaint examiner says they did not observe a bulge on body camera video. “Importantly, the right pocket did not appear to the complaint examiner to look differently than the left pocket,” the complaint examiner concludes in their report.

Discipline: 12-day suspension; Sfoglia resigned

Dennis Sfoglia

Case no. 21-0453

Some kids are hanging out on a playground in a public park when Officer Dennis Sfoglia and another officer approach and ask if the kids are armed. The kids refuse to let the officers search them, so the cops walk around the playground looking for weapons. The kids taunt the officers as they search. 

The officers return to their car, Sfoglia says, “don’t get shot like your little shithead friend out here,” and drives away.

OPC decision: The complaint examiner notes that neither officer had their body cameras turned on, but the kids recorded parts of the encounter on their phones. In an interview with OPC, Sfoglia claimed that he intended to show the kids the danger of firearms, not to malign the kids’ friend, who, according to the complainant, had been shot and killed. The complaint examiner didn’t buy the officer’s explanation and ruled that Sfoglia violated the general orders prohibiting officers from using insulting, demeaning, or humiliating language. 

Discipline: Letter of prejudice

Michael Vaillancourt

Case no. 21-0072/21-0074

Officer Michael Vaillancourt was in charge of transporting people who’d been arrested during an Election Day rally downtown. He asks a man sitting handcuffed in a police wagon if his cuffs are plastic or metal. The man does not respond at first, so Vaillancourt says, “Are you high? Do you understand English?” The man, Ron Brown, replies: “Is your fucking mother high bitch?”

Vaillancourt and Brown continue to go back and forth. Brown insults Vaillancourt’s mother, and the officer replies, sometimes in a “sing-song tone,” saying “whatever you say handsome,” and “have a nice day.”

OPC decision: The complaint examiner says Vaillancourt “not only responded to [Brown’s] use of profanity and statements about [the officer’s] mother in an unacceptable manner, but he also escalated the engagement with [Brown] by calling him ‘handsome’ and telling him to ‘have a nice day’ in a taunting manner.” The complaint examiner notes that the other officers who spoke with Brown did not engage and escalate their interactions the way Vaillancourt did and ultimately rules that Vaillancourt violated the general order prohibiting officers from using insulting, demeaning, or humiliating language. 

Discipline: education-based development, PD 750.

Michael Vaillancourt

Case no. 19-0732

Officers Michael Vaillancourt and Dustyn Hugee respond to a report that some people are shooting dice in front of a house in Southwest. When they arrive, they see a man, Alpha Jalloh, sitting in a vehicle that matches a BOLO (Be on the Lookout) alert. Hugee opens the car door and asks Jalloh to step out. Jalloh questions Hugee’s instructions before eventually moving to get out of the car.

When he does, Hugee draws his weapon and says, “don’t you fucking do anything stupid, get out of the car right now.”

Hugee says he thought Jalloh was reaching for a gun or a weapon, but the OPC complaint examiner says it looked like he was just moving to get out of the car as instructed and that his hands were in view the whole time.

Vaillancourt then pulls Jalloh out of the car, slams him to the ground, and drives his knee into Jalloh’s shoulder and back, smashing his face into the cement, according to a lawsuit Jalloh filed in U.S. District Court.

“You guys broke my jaw,” Jalloh said, according to the OPC report. “I gotta get y’all names now.” An MRI later revealed he had a broken shoulder, according to the lawsuit.

Vaillancourt handcuffed Jalloh, and both officers searched him and his vehicle over his objections. OPC concludes that officers had reasonable suspicion to frisk Jalloh, but had no probable cause to search him.

Although OPC Director Michael Tobin dismissed the use of force allegation against Vaillancourt, the complaint examiner says in their report that the officers’ reactions were “exaggerated” compared to [Jalloh’s] behavior. His hands were visible, and the slight movement he does make “along the center console and along the steering wheel appear to be those of a person about to get out of a car,” as Hugee had ordered him to do. Fischer also notes that Hugee’s descriptions on the scene, and later in an interview with OPC, that Jalloh “reached down by your waist” and “did not show his hands” is inconsistent with the body camera footage, and calls into “question the credibility of his testimony as to his recollection of the incident.” 

OPC decision: The complaint examiner finds that both officers illegally detained Jalloh in handcuffs for longer than they were allowed. Both officers also failed to identify themselves when asked.  

Discipline: pending due to ongoing litigation

Abdul Dieng and Imar Samaraay (both officers are currently under investigation for allegations of failing to arrest suspects carrying illegal firearms and falsifying police reports.)

Case no. 22-0022

Officers Abdul Dieng and Imar Samaraay drive past a man sitting in his vehicle and talking on his phone. They claim that they initially stopped because he was parked illegally, his window tints were too dark, and they wanted to do a wellness check. According to the OPC compliant examiner, “this strains credibility. It is very unlikely the officers could not see that [the man] was alert and on his phone through his front windshield. The [body worn camera] footage clearly revealed that the driver’s side window was more than adequately translucent to have permitted the officers to see [the man] through the closed window.”

The officers ask the man to step out of the car, and they find a pistol in his fanny pack.

OPC decision: Neither officer could say definitively whether they initially intended to conduct a field contact or a stop, the latter of which requires reasonable suspicion of a crime.

“The officers’ contention that the basis for the stop was a parking violation cannot justify the stop. It is plainly and factually inaccurate,” the complaint examiner writes in their report. Body camera footage clearly shows that the man was not blocking the alley, and even if he was parked illegally, that would not have given the officers enough reasonable suspicion for a stop.

The complaint examiner finds that the officers purposely and knowingly violated the law and MPD’s general orders against unlawful stops.

Discipline: Eight-day suspension

Abdul Dieng and Imar Samaraay

Case no. 22-0218

Officers Abdul Dieng and Imar Samaraay stop a vehicle because the rear tag was covered with a plastic cover and because the vehicle was idling in a bus lane. The driver and passenger are uncooperative, but, the OPC complaint examiner says, the officers “did not de-escalate the situation,” and “acted rudely and unprofessionally.”

The driver asks Dieng to stop shining his flashlight in his face, and Dieng replies, “You don’t need to see me, as long as I can see you.” At one point, the passenger says they will roll the windows up and step out of the vehicle. Dieng says, “you’re not gonna roll the windows up,” and opens the driver’s door. “I dare you to roll the windows up,” he says. At another point, after the driver and passenger excited the vehicle, the passenger says she wants to roll the windows up. Dieng replies, “I dare you. I dare you to.” 

The passenger requests that the officers call a sergeant to the scene, and Samaraay shakes his head and says in a mocking tone, “it doesn’t matter.” Eventually, while the driver and passenger are standing outside the car, Samaraay frisks the driver but finds no weapons. 

OPC decision: Both officers illegally patted down the driver and used “harsh condescending, and mocking” tones in violation of the general orders.

“[Abdul Dieng] admitted in his interview with OPC that he did not believe that [the driver] had a weapon or was otherwise armed and dangerous. Yet [Dieng] asked [Samaraay] to pat down [the driver].”

Discipline: 18-day suspension

Eric Farris

Case no. 22-411

Officer Eric Farris spots the complainant walking by himself in the same area. He walks up and immediately puts the man in handcuffs. The man does not physically resist, but refuses to provide his ID and repeatedly asks whether the officers have probable cause to stop him. Farris recognized him from an encounter just a couple days prior, when officers found a firearm and a “drum-style magazine” in a car near where the man was standing. The encounter lasts for about eight minutes, and then the officers let the man go free.

OPC decision: Farris illegally stopped and handcuffed the man. “Simply stated, [the complainant] did nothing wrong,” the OPC report says. “He was not under any obligation to provide information to [Farris] but seemingly was penalized for his failure to do so.”

Discipline: pending