Recording of cops’ alleged racial slurs was altered and added to, investigation finds

An audio recording that purportedly captured Eastborough police officers making racially disparaging remarks — including the N-word — had been altered and some outside material added before it was broadcast on Wichita television, according to a statement from the city.

“The recording provided was examined by a Detective employed by the Lawrence, KS Police Department,” the city’s statement said. “This specialist completed a forensics analysis and determined the audio, aired by Channel 12 News, had been edited more than once, and that outside material had been added to the original content.”

An original recording, allegedly containing about 20 minutes of muffled conversation in the police station, “was never produced” despite repeated promises that it would be, the statement said.

A news executive at Channel 12, KWCH-TV, said the station did not alter the recording that was broadcast. “We accurately reported the information a source provided to us,” said News Director Kim Wilhelm.

The mayor of Eastborough said the city does not think the station altered the recording.

The recording at issue was allegedly made by an African-American woman and her friend who claimed to have heard derogatory comments about the woman when police failed to hang up after she called to discuss a traffic ticket. Eastborough is an upscale enclave of about 750 people surrounded by Wichita.

The city’s statement was written in response to a request from James Barfield, who addressed the Eastborough City Council last month demanding an update on the investigation into the incident. Barfield is a former member of the Kansas African-American Affairs Commission.

The statement, which he shared with The Eagle, was signed by Mayor Danny Wallace and Police Commissioner Stacy Moore.

It was based on the findings from a report by the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office, engaged by Eastborough as an outside agency to investigate the incident. Sheriff Jeff Easter did not return a phone message seeking comment.

Portions of the recording were aired in news reports in May on KWCH-TV. The station acknowledged that much of the recording was inaudible, but reported that the racial epithet and the sentence “What’s with the hair?” could be clearly heard.

In a televised interview, the woman who was the alleged subject of the conversation also claimed to have heard police say “she must have food stamps” and “she sounds like she has baby mama, baby daddy drama.”

The station identified her only as “Destane,” pronounced Destiny.

Was the N-word used?

Central to the issue is whether an officer used the N-word in describing the woman who had called. Within hours, a portion of the recording was put on Facebook, Wallace said.

He said he listened to it and could make out nothing of substance other than the word “hair.”

Wallace said the N-word became audible when subsequent versions of the recording were posted, which he was told were a “cleaned up” version of the original.

He stood by an earlier statement that use of the N-word by an officer would be grounds for firing, but said he’s not sure now that it actually was used.

“My personal opinion, and apparently that was validated in the forensics, is that the recording I heard (originally) was different than what was aired on Channel 12,” Wallace said. “And I totally respect James’ willingness to pursue and make this right for the young lady and the community.

“But if the (recording) was edited, then I think we’ve all been had. Why would somebody edit a (recording)? Well, somebody’s trying to get more traction out of an event than the event actually had.”

The city’s statement to Barfield did not go into detail on what investigators believe was added to the recording.

It did address the comment about hair.

“It is the investigating officer’s belief, after interviewing all of the persons in the room and the complaintant, that the ‘hair and appearance’ comments were in regards to a Facebook post of an Eastborough police officer and were not in regards to the complaintant,” the statement said.

‘We took a huge lump’

The city statement said that the sheriff’s investigation was exhaustive and lasted over 60 days.

During the investigation, two of the department’s six officers were placed on administrative leave.

“That’s a real cost to us, we took a huge lump over this,” Moore said. “It was very expensive and very arduous, No. 1 in terms of money but No. 2 in terms of morale and the perception among our force.”

Not only did the department have to pay overtime to other officers, it had reduced patrol coverage — and a motorist who hit the city’s monument sign, causing thousands of dollars in damage, got away with it, Moore said.

The Eastborough statement also said “the complaintant spoke willingly to investigators and scheduled multiple appointments to bring the recording device to Sedgwick County offices and failed to show for each appointment.”

The city statement said some actions were recommended by the sheriff’s office and implemented, although those actions “are sealed and a matter of Human Resources policy.”

Barfield said he is not fully satisfied with the response from the city.

Last month, he filed a request for the sheriff’s office’s report under the Kansas Open Records Act.

It was denied by the city, citing exemptions in the act that allow public agencies to shield personnel and criminal investigation records from disclosure.

Barfield said he doesn’t think those exemptions should apply in this case because the names of individual officers could easily be redacted from the report. Also, no crime was alleged, only violations of department policy.

He said he was “somewhat pleased” that the city released a report to him on how the investigation was conducted and what the results were.

But, he said, “There’s still not been complete transparency on this issue as far as I’m concerned. We don’t know what disciplinary actions, if any, were undertaken by the mayor or the police department.”

Officers disciplined

According to Moore, officers involved were disciplined, but it was unrelated to the racial bias allegations made by the woman who recorded the call.

“There was some language that was used that we didn’t approve of, but it had nothing to do with what they’re talking about,” Moore said. “It had nothing to do with racism in any way, shape or form and that was confirmed by Sedgwick County.”

Wallace said the issue was that the officer who took the call spoke to the woman in a rude manner.

“The officer that spoke rudely to her admitted that in our investigation,” Wallace said. “He said ‘This is what I said when I thought the phone was hung up. I absolutely did not say the N-word, but I did say this.’ And he admitted it to Sedgwick County as well.”

In addition to addressing the complaint at hand, the statement from the city to Barfield said Eastborough has engaged a Wichita State University professor to conduct “ongoing sensitivity training” to prevent bias-based policing for all current officers and new hires, “to ensure we maintain our efforts to perform fair and impartial public safety.”

This story was originally published September 25, 2019 at 4:48 PM.