The Chief McManus brouhaha

Minneapolis police officer Duy Ngo was assigned to the Minnesota Gang Strike Force on the night of February 24, 2003, when he was working alone in an unmarked squad car, conducting surveillance in the area of 36th Street South and Third Avenue in Minneapolis. He was dressed in a wig and heavy sweater and sweatshirt that covered a protective vest. He advised police dispatch what he was doing.

In the early morning hours of the 24th, a suspect approached Ngo’s vehicle, whose lights were conspicuously on, drew a gun and pointed it at Ngo’s face. Officer Ngo grabbed the gun and the man pulled the trigger.

The shot hit officer Ngo in the chest, shocking and bruising him but not penetrating. Four additional shots were fired but officer Ngo’s holding the weapon misdirected them. Recovery of the shells in his vest matched another that exited the squad car and lay on the ground – 40-caliber casings.

Dazed, carrying three guns, officer Ngo emerged and fired at the man four times. He radioed an emergency twice at Minneapolis Police Department officers – shots fired, officer down. Officer Charles Storlie responded to the call and approached Ngo from the south, guns in both hands. He didn’t recognize Ngo.

About nine to 12 feet from Ngo, Storlie shouted, “Don’t!” and fired five times from his MP5, an automatic nine-millimeter machine gun. All three shootings, by the suspect, officer Ngo and officer Storlie, occurred within the span of three minutes.
Officer Ngo subsequently filed suit against officer Stortie and his superiors for wrongful use of force. Officer Storlie’s actions were submitted to the Hennepin County Attorney, who declined to prosecute a possible charge of second-degree assault.

A suspect who had allegedly confessed the act to a fellow inmate in prison could not be definitively tied to the case.

Officer Ngo’s actions reflect a perhaps commendable interest, aggressiveness and initiative, but is the sort of free-lancing rarely encouraged by police agencies. His calling in to dispatch and ballistics tend to confirm his account. There is a reference to three calls after midnight on his Nextel, one to officer Setzer advising officer Ngo had been shot, at 2:33 a.m. The case was an agony for the MPD: no arrest, an officer behaving in a hard-to-fathom manner and a responding officer shooting him, with a possible criminal charge hanging over him.

It isn’t hard to imagine internal consternation, wild rumors and irresponsible imaginings and speculations.

Lieutenant Michael Carlson – a highly regarded investigator – was assigned to review the actions taken on this case. On June 16, 2003 – Bloomsday — he forwarded a memo to Deputy Chief Lucy Gerold with CC to Captain Michael Martin, in which he was severely critical of the investigation undertaken four months earlier, raising very tough questions about possible failings. This memo becomes the cause celebre in this affair.

A few days after the memo, a meeting was held, attended by then-chief Robert Olson, Deputy Chief Gerold, Captain Martin and Lieutenant Carlson. It seems clear from the statements of the four that both Olson and Gerold seemed concerned about the memo floating around, and Martin came away from the meeting confused about what the chief and deputy chief really wanted. He seemed to grow in the belief that something like a quashing was desired but was later unable to support the contention that suppression or destruction of the memo was either wanted or sought.

This meeting was a Petrie dish of virulent bacteria that included among the items missing from the agenda but otherwise present, a captain who complained of butting heads for over a year with a deputy chief who made his life miserable and a lieutenant alleged to be engaged in what Admiral Elmo Zumwalt once described as “friggin’ in the riggin.” A chief benignly presided over the lot.

On his arrival as the new chief, William McManus wanted to clear the air and crush the ugly rumors that Ngo had shot himself and similar nonsense. Both Martin and Carlson strongly expressed that they did not believe these canards.

Chief McManus met with Martin and Carlson, as a result of which he held a press conference on Feb. 25, 2004, announcing that officer Ngo had been cleared in the shooting.

The next day, Feb. 26, 2004, Capt. Martin, Carlson and Internal Affairs Division Lt. Valerie Wurster came to Capt. McManus’ office. Lt. Carlson was upset that chief McManus might not have understood the full complexity and scope of the investigation, notwithstanding his support of Ngo’s being cleared. Martin stayed behind and apparently strongly hinted at skullduggery, and provided chief McManus with a copy of the June 16, 2003 memo by Carlson. He also informed the chief of the subsequent June 2003 meeting in Olson’s office and, reflecting his confusion as he had exited that meeting, apparently said that either Olson or Gerold said something to the effect of “get rid of it!” Wurster also reinforced this impression on the basis of talks with Martin.

Chief McManus thereafter placed Gerold, Martin and Carlson on paid administrative leave and asked Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to conduct a criminal inquiry into the possible ordering of the destruction of a public record. That there seemed to have been plenty of extant copies of the memo apparently impressed no one. The Bloomington assistant city attorney reviewed the BCA’s reports and declined to prosecute. All were reinstated.

In later encounters, Chief McManus is alleged to have told Martin that he was “on to her (Gerold),” according to McManus, and that he would “take her out” a piece at a time. He also allegedly used profanity.

Carlson reported that in his interview with McManus he had been called “stupid” and “naïve” for “backing the wrong horse” with the council on the chief selection.
Later McManus offered a general apology as to his communications with the staff.
Woven through the records are references to alliances, rivalries, feuds and bureaucratic struggles, laced with references to affairs that may or may not have inspired some actions and charges of leaks to the press and such.
In short, déjà vu all over again.

What the MPD must do is a thorough investigation of the initial shooting of Ngo before the statute of limitations expires. All need to get this silly episode behind them and pursue the people’s business. No one emerges covered in glory. No one deserves opprobrium. Officer Ngo should get a medal.