A Denver Police captain who investigated the actions of a Hispanic detective who claims he was unjustly punished told a jury he showed poor judgement when he met an informant in the middle of the night without telling supervisors.
“The decision-making he used at that time was very, very poor,” said Capt. Kris Kroncke, who as a lieutenant in the vice and narcotics bureau investigated the actions of Det. Daniel Rojas, 58. “He put himself in jeopardy, it was not a good idea.”
Officers who work with narcotics are dealing with shady people, and have to be very careful to protect themselves from harm and allegations of improper behavior, said Kroncke, who recommended that Rojas be assigned to different duty.
“I didn’t ask that he be demoted, I just said he can’t stay here, there is too much freedom in vice and narcotics to have that kind of judgement,” Kroncke testified Thursday. “I felt he should be in a more structured area.”
Closing arguments are expected to begin Friday.
Rojas, a 30-year-veteran, was one of 16 Hispanic police plaintiffs who filed suit in U.S. District Court in Denver claiming discrimination. Judges dismissed 15 of those cases, making Rojas’ claim the only one to go to trial.
The suit claims his assignment to desk work during the investigation continued for four months after he completed a disciplinary suspension. In other similar cases, he said, officers were sent back to their regular jobs after being disciplined.
Capt. John Lamb, who headed the internal affairs bureau at the time, said it isn’t unusual for an officer to be kept on desk duty after an investigation finishes.
Many times, Lamb said, the desk assignment is extended when an investigation shows conduct that raises questions about the officer’s fitness for the assignment he or she previously held.
Rojas was working on a federal case involving members of a Mexican drug cartel when a woman connected to the organization called to tell him that a man involved with the ring wanted to talk to him right away.
The call came at 2 a.m. when he was getting off work, and Rojas told the woman he didn’t want to go, but relented and drove to her apartment complex. He met with the woman and the man, who Rojas hoped to get evidence from, near a pool in the complex, Kroncke said.
But he didn’t tell a supervisor, a requirement for after-hours police work, nor did he bring a witnessing officer along, which is required when a detective meets an informant of the opposite sex, Kroncke said.
During the investigation, Rojas first said he hadn’t carried a weapon to the meeting, but later said he had an “unauthorized” gun with him, Kroncke said.
After completing the investigation, Kroncke did not find that the detective had departed from the truth, a firing offense, in denying he had a gun.
But when Rojas saw a report on the findings at the Internal Affairs Bureau a box was checked that said he had departed from the truth.
Rojas told an IA detective and he pointed out the error to Lamb.
Lamb called it a data entry mistake and ordered it fixed. Only members of internal affairs bureau had access to the computer system, so someone from another unit could not have doctored the information on the form, he said. “It was a human mistake that was corrected immediately …. I do not believe it had any impact on his career.”
Tom McGhee: 303-954-1671, tmcghee@denverpost.com or
