Shielded

Madison police officer Sarah Anderson was ready for a few days off by the time she finished up her shift at 8 p.m. on Oct. 2, 2012. She parked her squad car in the basement of the City County Building and gathered her belongings in the dark garage.

But she forgot one thing: her work-issued AR-15 rifle.

The next shift officer who used the same squad car as Anderson found the rifle. He showed it to Officer Stephen Heimsness, complaining that Anderson had left personal items in the squad before. Another cop agreed to bring the rifle upstairs, where it was secured in its proper place on a rack inside the station’s armory. That could have been the end of it.

But rather than report the error to a supervisor or complain to Anderson directly, Heimsness and the officer spent the shift plotting how to teach Anderson a lesson, according to emails and other records obtained by Isthmus through an open records request. Heimsness told one colleague he wanted to “figure out how to embarrass” Anderson.

As the night wore on, Heimsness and the other officer dispensed their punishment. The rifle was dismantled, stuffed in a case and concealed on a tall shelf inside the armory. An unsigned note was left: “Do not leave rifle unsecured in your squad, especially before your days off. Parts are in small pocket.”

When Anderson returned to work on Oct. 7 she couldn’t find her rifle. She searched the armory three times, finally telling Lt. Stephanie Bradley Wilson, the officer-in-charge, that her rifle was missing. Another supervisor found it on the back of the shelf underneath some cases.

An internal investigation was launched and investigators quickly realized that Heimsness had been involved in the prank and lied about it, records show. Anderson told supervisors she felt harassed and worried that Heimsness would lash out again.

On Oct. 29, according to an email sent by the lieutenant in charge of reviewing the incident, Anderson was forced to go on leave. The investigation into the rifle incident and harassment charges was suspended either that same day or on Oct. 26; there are contradictory dates in the records. Heimsness remained on active duty.

On Nov. 9, he shot and killed Paul Heenan.

In June 2013, Chief Noble Wray filed a lengthy complaint with the Madison Police and Fire Commission seeking to fire Heimsness; among a number of misconduct charges the complaint alleges Heimsness harassed Anderson and lied about it.

When the complaint was filed, the incident with the rifle became public. What was unclear was the extent to which the department knew about it before Heenan was killed. Isthmus sought records on the incident in an open records request on Dec. 7, 2016. The department delayed producing the requested documents for more than a year. Only after the paper filed a lawsuit did the department turn over 729 pages of documents.

The documents show, for the first time, the internal conversation about the rifle incident and how the investigation unfolded. The records confirm that the internal review was suspended in late October. When it was resumed after the Heenan shooting, investigators became alarmed by Heimsness’ behavior and finally moved to fire him.

Anderson wishes they had acted sooner. “If the department had actually investigated, [Heimsness] wouldn’t have been working patrol the night Heenan was killed,” says Anderson. “He humiliated me, intimidated me and then lied about it from the very beginning. All the evidence was there but nothing was done. It took Heimsness shooting a guy for the department to take what happened to me seriously.”

The police department and city attorney’s office declined to comment on the specifics of the case.

Police consultant Michael Gennaco was the lead consultant with the OIR Group that recently audited the Madison Police Department. In his line of work he has studied hundreds of internal police investigations. When told the details of Heimsness’ harassment of Anderson and his lies, Gennaco expressed surprise that the department did not act more swiftly.

“Departments tend to respond quickly to harassment allegations because it’s a potential risk from a litigation standpoint. I’ve seen many cases where there have been significant payouts as a result of harassment that was under-addressed,” says Gennaco. Moreover, he adds, “Integrity issues are one of the leading reasons why officers get terminated. For most agencies, giving false or misleading statements is a fireable offense especially when it’s done repeatedly.”

Anderson admits it was a mistake to leave her rifle unattended in her squad and says she was willing to be punished for it. However, she thought the prank played on her was worse, a form of harassment. The incident left her rattled, unsure of whom she could trust on the force. She didn’t file a formal harassment complaint against Heimsness because her supervisors assured her they’d investigate it no matter what, records show.

“Filing a harassment complaint against another officer wasn’t going to help me in this situation. But Heimsness was clearly involved and lying about it. I was always told lying was a fatal mistake that could end your career,” says Anderson. “Cops can tell when someone is being cagey. I noticed. Why didn’t they?”

The department’s top brass did in fact suspect that Heimsness — who was in charge of the central district armory — was involved. When Lt. Wilson asked him in an email about the incident, Heimsness fudged his involvement. “It is my understanding it is in the armory in a soft case because she left it unsecured in the squad,” he wrote in an Oct. 7 email. “Several coworkers…thought this may help her remember to be responsible for her equipment.”

Lt. Kristen Roman, now the chief of UW Police, forwarded Heimsness’ response to her commanders, noting “Heimsness it was. Good that he feels he should take things into his own hands like this.”

But the next day, Heimsness denied any involvement. In an Oct. 8 email to Anderson, he wrote “I didn’t do it” and then forwarded the message to a supervisor, who passed it along to Roman.

The incident also attracted the attention of the department’s command staff. On Oct. 15, Capt. Carl Gloede, the central district commander, told Roman that the incident had been brought up by Chief Noble Wray during a management team meeting and internal affairs was inquiring about it, records show. Roman responded that she would schedule interviews for the following week to investigate. But Anderson and Heimsness weren’t interviewed until January 2013.

Roman tells Isthmus in an email that Wray was updated weekly about this and all ongoing complaint investigations.

“Normally, we would have begun interviewing individuals at the end of October or early November starting first with the primary complainant,” Roman says. “But several individuals were not available for interviews for various reasons, including Sarah Anderson.”

Anderson was not available because of the leave she was pressured to take. In an Oct. 29, 2012 email to the city’s human resources director, Roman summarized her “fitness for duty” concerns about Anderson. She noted that Anderson had been dealing with “intense personal struggles” that were affecting her “work performance and behavior in various ways.” Roman wrote that Anderson “missed a great deal of work” because of these struggles and failed to appear for a briefing one day.

Roman also recounted that on Oct. 26 Anderson texted a fellow employee to say she would not be able to come to work and asked him to contact the officer in charge on her behalf. Officers attempted to reach Anderson that day to check on her welfare but she did not respond. She did report to work the next day but, according to Roman’s email, was “clearly distressed” and “crying”; Anderson also said she had been suffering from panic attacks.

Roman also wrote that “Sarah has a pattern of forgetting and leaving things in the squad at the end of her shift.” But the officer who initially found Anderson’s rifle, acknowledged in an interview conducted on Feb. 27, 2013 by Lt. June Groehler, that he had found only some binders and folders in the trunk of the squad car and that it “wasn’t something I was really upset about.” He also said that he did not address the matter with Anderson.

When Anderson arrived at work on Oct. 29, Roman and Lt. John Radovan confronted her. “I was told that I had been behaving ‘sad and distant,’” she tells Isthmus. “They said I needed a break and it wasn’t optional.

“They encouraged me to take family leave or I’d be put on administrative leave, which is considered far more dishonorable,” Anderson adds. “I didn’t want to be taken off patrol duty but I did what I was told.”

Anderson admits this was a rough time for her. The week her rifle went missing, her divorce to fellow Madison police officer Stephen Mackesey was finalized (they have since reconciled and remarried) and her dog died. But she was also anxious about Heimsness, and feeling sabotaged by fellow officers. She notes that most of the items summarized in Roman’s memo happened after the rifle incident.

Anderson says she felt like she was the only officer being scrutinized. Records show she was right.

While Anderson was being sidelined, Heimsness was openly bragging about his role in the prank to a supervisor and at least three uninvolved officers through the department’s mobile data computer system, which cops use to message each other directly. He told Sgt. Galen Wiering on Oct. 19, 2012 that Anderson “didn’t dig our peer-to-peer counseling methodology.”

“Not harassment,” Wiering responded. “It’s promoting ‘best practices.’”

Heimsness also told another patrol officer that Anderson was a “whiner” who “crapped a brick claiming we harassed her.”

“[Anderson] ran to a [lieutenant] and she’s apparently getting written up for it,” Heimsness wrote on Oct. 19 to an officer, whose name was redacted in some of the records. “Oops…that didn’t work out like you thought, did it? LOL.”

On Nov. 9 Heimsness responded to a call about a break-in on Baldwin Street. When he arrived, he found Paul Heenan and a neighbor wrestling on the front lawn. Heenan was severely intoxicated and had mistakenly entered the home of his neighbor, Kevin O’Malley. Heimsness ordered the men to get down. Heimsness later told investigators that Heenan had charged at him and tried to grab his gun (O’Malley has disputed this account). Heimsness shot Heenan three times.

Heimsness went on leave after the fatal shooting while the department and the Dane County District Attorney’s office investigated.

District Attorney Ismael Ozanne cleared Heimsness of any criminal neglect on Dec. 27. On Jan. 9, 2013 Chief Wray announced that Heimsness followed department protocol during the Heenan shooting and he would return to duty.

Anderson was stunned by how quickly Heimsness was exonerated. “I thought the department would fire him for sure and I could come back to work with a clean slate,” she says. “When he was cleared, somehow I became a huge problem for the department. What [Heimsness] did to me was a huge red flag that was totally ignored.”

While still on temporary leave, Anderson continued to press her supervisors to investigate the rifle incident. On Jan. 14, 2013 she emailed her supervisors asking about the status of the investigation. “I knew it might reflect poorly on the department but I wasn’t going to let them forget,” she says. “He was a bad cop and should have been taken off the street years ago.”

Records show that on Jan. 17, Heimsness was finally interviewed about the missing rifle and admitted his involvement.

“She’s been dealing with some issues,” Heimsness told Roman during the internal affairs interview, in reference to Anderson. “She doesn’t need to be pulled in for discipline. Our intention at the time was we want to do some peer-to-peer counseling with her.”

On Jan. 31, Anderson was interviewed for the first time.

The department’s internal affairs unit also began reviewing messages Heimsness sent through his mobile data computer. Investigators discovered that “multiple simultaneous conversations took place involving multiple different policy violations.”

On Feb. 1, Wray told reporters that Heimsness was being investigated for reasons unrelated to the Heenan shooting, including an incident in October 2012.

Wray’s June 2013 complaint with the Police and Fire Commission alleged 118 counts of misconduct by Heimsness. These included his alleged harassment of Anderson, the mishandling of Anderson’s rifle and “a pattern of misrepresentation, omission and false statements” after hiding Anderson’s rifle.

Heimsness was also accused of violating numerous other department policies during the months leading up to the Heenan shooting. He is alleged to have used insulting, defamatory or obscene language; lied on duty; violated firearms safety protocols; disrespected a supervisor; misused city property; and violated policies regarding harassment, discrimination and workplace violence prevention.

Before the complaint was released, Assistant Chief Randy Gaber sent an email to command staff asking them to alert 21 department employees — including Anderson — that “unfavorable things” would become public once the complaint against Heimsness was filed.

“[Heimsness] freely shared his negative opinions and remarks to multiple members of the department over several months,” wrote Sgt. Phil Moore in the preliminary complaint. “His targets included dispatchers, coworkers, supervisors, members of other agencies and the community contacts he made during the course of his work.

“Heimsness has indicated that his messages are often sent in jest, or are [an] example of the ‘dark humor’ commonly shared by members of law enforcement and other first responders,” Moore continued. “However, this message content, combined with his repeated messages containing threats and references to violence, gives the perception of a frustrated and angry individual on the brink of aggressive action.”

Dan Frei, president of the Madison Professional Police Officers Association, defended Heimsness’ conduct at the time.

“I know Steve,” Frei told the Wisconsin State Journal in June 2013. “He’s a funny, sarcastic guy. He communicates with certain people in certain ways that won’t always be understandable to the public.”

During his review of the department, consultant Michael Gennaco found it significant how the union defended Heimsness — who was on the police union board — when Wray sought to fire him.

“It’s interesting that the [union] so publicly sided with Heimsness considering the officers he allegedly harassed were also members of the association,” Gennaco tells Isthmus. “What does that say?”

Anderson says she did not seek assistance from the union because of Heimsness’ leadership in the organization.

“The union guys were all close friends with Heimsness,” Anderson says. “They only help their own: white men.”

Jim Palmer, executive director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, which represents Madison’s police officers, says WPPA didn’t condone Heimsness’ behavior after Wray filed his complaint.

“The issue was whether the charges warranted termination,” Palmer says. “When a department for several years abdicates its requirement … to monitor its employees and then those employees engage in misconduct, there is culpability all around.

“In order to sustain discipline, an employer has to show that they enforce the rules uniformly,” he adds. “It was a legitimate posture for us to take at the time.”

Palmer also says the union would have worked with Anderson, or any other Madison officer, who wished to pursue a separate complaint against Heimsness.

Heimsness agreed to resign in October 2013 before Wray’s complaint was heard by the Police and Fire Commission. He received a full state disability retirement due to posttraumatic stress caused by the Heenan shooting. When Heenan’s family sued the department in 2013, U.S. District Judge William M. Conley found that “a reasonable jury could find that if the city had adequately supervised officers like Heimsness, especially with respect to addressing callousness and lack of insight about an officer’s decisions concerning repeated uses of deadly force, Heenan may not have been shot.”

Rather than let a jury decide, the city settled the case for $2.3 million.

According to his personnel file, Heimsness was investigated by internal affairs eight times for excessive force over his 15-year career. Investigators gave “no finding” for five of the excessive force counts, exonerated one of the charges, did “not sustain” another and sustained the charge for a 2001 incident, for which Heimsness received a 15-day suspension.

The charge that investigators did “not sustain” relates to the arrest of Jacob Bauer at State Street Brats on Dec. 29, 2006. Although the department did not find Heimsness guilty of excessive force, the city quietly paid $27,000 when Bauer filed a lawsuit.

The night of the incident, Elissa Parker, a bartender at State Street Brats, called 911 to report what she felt was unacceptable behavior by the cops.

“I think the police almost killed this guy. And I don’t think he deserved this,” Parker told the operator. “They were kicking him in the head and stomping on his face and bending his neck over to the side, and he’s out now and there’s blood everywhere and it’s very Rodney King-esque.”

Heimsness would be cleared of two more excessive force charges after that incident. Heimsness declined, through Palmer, to comment to Isthmus for this story.

Anderson’s personnel file, in contrast, shows that her job performance was widely praised. She was never disciplined during her four-year tenure with the department. For a March 2013 “goal-setting” review, Sgt. Kelly Donahue wrote that Anderson — who was a mental health liaison officer — is “often complimented on her ability to work with difficult populations” and on calls for social services. Anderson says the department never raised concerns about her fitness for duty before the rifle incident.

Former Madison Lt. Wayne Strong, who retired in early 2013, is unfamiliar with the details of this case but investigated complaints against officers during his 23 years with the department.

“Leaving a rifle in a squad car would be looked into,” says Strong. “But unless there were repeated violations, it would probably only result in a verbal warning.”

Harassment allegations, in his experience, would prompt a more robust internal investigation, Strong says.

“Those incidents would be judged on a case-by-case basis. The circumstances, past history of the officer, other factors would all be used to determine the severity of the punishment if confirmed,” Strong says. “The department did treat harassment seriously because officers need to trust one another.”

Anderson returned to duty on April 4, 2013, although she was given “light duty” — essentially desk work. She says that a month later her supervisors informed her that a doctor, who had performed a department-ordered mental health exam, had found her unfit for duty and she was removed from the force.

She was offered a disability accommodation job in the city’s zoning department, where she worked for four years. She is now appealing a denial of disability retirement benefits — similar to what Heimsness received.

The police department and city attorney’s office have declined to comment on the case, pending an appeal of the workers compensation claim filed by Anderson.

“So many of my colleagues are wonderful people who really cared about doing a good job,” Anderson says. “I hate that I’m an example of why officers should think twice before coming forward. I didn’t even really know Steve Heimsness and he went out of his way to mess with me. He was toxic. But I was nobody and he was well-connected.”

Anderson always wanted to be a cop. She loved working at the department but the incident with Heimsness traumatized her.

“If you’re a woman or a minority, you’re on your own when things get tough. That’s why all their talk about diversity seems hollow,” Anderson says. “The department should have taken a cop off the street after the rifle situation. I still don’t fully understand why it had to be me.”