FOP comments on officer's refusal to participate in investigation
Indianapolis - An internal investigation released Wednesday revealed that David Bisard, the Indianapolis Metro Police officer at the center of a deadly August 6th crash, refused to be interviewed for the report.
High-ranking members of the Fraternal Order of Police were on hand to hear the results of the report. The FOP's former president commented on Bisard's refusal to participate in the investigation.
"We are compelled as police officers as a condition for employment to cooperate with investigations," said Aaron Sullivan, former FOP president.
When pressed on whether Sullivan thought Bisard should have cooperated, he responded, "We're compelled to. It's a decision you have to make. If you don't want to uphold that condition of employment, then you have to make the decision. Will I? Will I not?"
When it was pointed out that Bisard did not cooperate, Sullivan said, "That's what it sounds like."
Because of his refusal to cooperate with the investigation, Bisard was charged with insubordination by the department.
The report also determined that there was no one clearly in charge of the crash scene, and that because it was treated as a crash scene and not a crime scene, key evidence was lost.
The FOP had this to say about how the scene was handled.
"You can't manufacture probable cause out of thin air. In order to be able to secure evidence you have to believe that a physical item or a statement is in fact evidence to a crime, so in order to do that you have to develop probable cause that a crime has actually been committed and so I didn't hear anything in today's press conference that talked about probable cause of a crime," said Sullivan.
It was determined that blood draw procedures were not done properly following the crash, and initial DUI charges against Bisard were thrown out. But on Wednesday, investigators said that the testing was proper and that Bisard was intoxicated.
"The determination of the Marion County Crime Lab and from all investigators from the Professional Standards Division was that the blood alcohol from David Bisard was .19 and that is a fact. He violated the substance abuse policy of the department for being intoxicated while on duty. He violated the police vehicle operation policy for running under emergency conditions when it was not warranted. He violated the use of communication devices by sending non-business-related messages. And by preponderance of the evidence which is a requirement in administrative investigations, he violated all criminal charges that were initially filed including the alcohol charges."