Jane Doe v. Suffolk County [name and case caption withheld to protect the identity of the victim]

Status: Pending

Nature: Police misconduct. Sexual assault of female detainee by arresting officer in the 1st Pct.

Potential Liability: $40 million

Summary:

Cop admits to sexually assaulting woman in interrogation room (nypost.com)
By Ruth Brown | New York Post | July 27, 2017 12:58pm

A veteran Suffolk County police officer sexually assaulted a woman he’d just arrested, prosecutors charged Thursday.

Officer Christopher McCoy, 38, allegedly forced the victim to perform oral sex at the First Precinct in Wyandanch after cuffing her March 16, according to a federal court complaint filed in Long Island.

McCoy, who’s been on the force for 10 years, had just busted the woman on several outstanding warrants stemming from unresolved vehicle and traffic offenses.

The victim, who is not being identified, sued McCoy, the Suffolk County Police Department and another officer, Mark Pav, two months after the alleged assault.

In the suit, she claimed McCoy brought her to an interrogation room inside the precinct and pressed his “bulge” into her, asking “do you feel that?”

He then beckoned her to “kiss” his private parts, according to court papers.

McCoy, who is married and lives in Sayville, then allegedly forced her into the sex act – but quickly zipped up his pants and escorted her out of the room when someone walked past the door, the criminal complaint said.

Later that day, McCoy and his partner brought the victim back to the same room, where McCoy forced his penis into her mouth, telling her, “Let’s go, don’t make this hard,” according to the complaint.

Less than two weeks later, the woman began receiving texts from an unknown number – later identified as McCoy, who told her, “I put you [in] handcuffs…remember now?” when she asked the texter to identify themselves, court papers said.

She immediately went to the FBI.

McCoy initially denied sexually assaulting the woman – but confessed when FBI agents took a DNA swab from him in April.

A forensic examiner later matched McCoy’s DNA to a sample of a stain on the victim’s shirt.

Outcomes

• In deposition testimony, Christopher McCoy’s partner, SCPD PO Mark Pav, admitted that he (Pav) falsified the “Prisoner Activity Log” by making 9 fabricated entries.

• In October 2018, Christopher McCoy pleaded guilty to misdemeanor deprivation of civil rights under the color of law.  McCoy admitted to the presiding federal judge that the sexual conduct was not consensual: “She felt she did not have a choice.”  In July, 2019, McCoy was sentenced to one year in prison.

• SCPD failed to seek permission from prosecutors to investigate Pav or to file administrative charges against Pav within the contractually permissible time frame.  A SCPD statement to Newsday reportedly explained, “Due to the delay, the statute of limitations expired pertaining to internal discipline.”

• Nine months after the period to bring administrative charges had expired, SCPD IAB began its investigation into the matter. Eight months later, IAB recommended four administrative charges against McCoy and Pav that it knew were contractually time-barred: 1) failing to record the traffic stop data, 2) improperly transporting the female victim in the patrol car, 3) failing to document the victim’s debriefing, and 4) failing to correctly fill out the prisoner log.

• Pav remains employed with SCPD. Payroll records indicate that he received $239,832 in total compensation in 2021, including $64,487 in overtime.

• Suffolk County is now defending a $40 million-dollar civil lawsuit brought by the victim.

• Pav remains employed with SCPD. Payroll records for 2017 - 2021 indicate that PO Pav received more than $1 million in Suffolk County-taxpayer funded pay between 2017 and 2021:

  • 2017: Salary $132,841; Longevity $3,150; Overtime $28,436l; Other Earnings $18,298 - Total Earnings $182,725

  • 2018: Salary $137,525; Longevity $3,600; Overtime $46,09l Other Earnings $18,913 - Total Earnings $206,129

  • 2019: Salary $138,710; Longevity $4,275; Overtime $43,398 Other Earnings $19,921 - Total Earnings $206,304

  • 2020: Salary $150,659; Longevity $5,250; Overtime $52,544 Other Earnings $21,048 - Total Earnings $229,501

  • 2021: Salary $147,501; Longevity $6,050; Overtime $64,487 Other Earnings $21,336 -Total Earnings $239,382

  • 2017 - 2021: Salary $707,244; Longevity $22,325; OT $234,956; Other $99,516 - Total Earnings $1,064,041.

  Noteworthy conduct: Approximately four hours after arresting the victim, PO Pav returned to patrol while McCoy remained at the precinct with the victim. Pav texted McCoy to inform him that he (Pav) had stopped another vehicle with another female passenger writing that she “had warrants, so we took her and weed in her snatch at the precinct.” [emphasis added]

Sworn deposition testimony and a subsequent investigation by former NYPD Deputy Chief and former Yonkers Police Commissioner Edmund Hartnett revealed systemic failures at the 1st Pct.:

• Career opportunities are predicated on high volume enforcement “activity” (arrests & tickets)

• Coveted Crime Section Unit assignment rewards and requires high volume enforcement

• Rather than community safety and service, the focus is on drugs. No distinction is made between “drugs” and marihuana. Small quantity marijuana possession defendants are induced to become informants and perform controlled drug buys in Wyandanch in effort to obtain search warrants and develop ‘bigger investigations’ in collaboration with the narcotics unit.

• Little to no supervision; wide discretion (uniform or plainclothes) and self-directed patrols. Members not compelled to properly maintain memorandum books or to conform to legal constraints. Precinct Crime Unit supervisor is unfamiliar with disciplinary process.

• Members stop vehicles for being “suspicious” or in proximity to ‘drug locations’ rather than on the basis of particularized articulable reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

• Members improperly demand identification from vehicle passengers in order to run warrant checks in furtherance of investigatory effort in the absence of probable cause.

• Inadequate data integrity and supervisory oversight. Most traffic stop record fields contain no information.

• Members of communities of color are repeatedly traumatized by this relentless pursuit of the long discredited ‘war on drugs’. The adverse public health impact is compelling.

These findings of Law Enforcement Expert Edmund Hartnett are particularly noteworthy:

• This traffic stop was not conducted in a manner consistent with law enforcement best practices. There was no articulated reason and no apparent legal justification to stop the vehicle . . . There was no stated or credible reasonable suspicion in this instance . . . the stop had all the earmarks of a hunting expedition . . . There was no reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. There was no T-Stop entry made by either officer. Officer PAV’s Memorandum Book is missing. And there was an inexplicable warrant check done on a passenger in the car.

• Officer PAV gave no articulable reason for the traffic stop. He suggested that perhaps the stop was made due to proximity of a nearby drug location

• the fact that the officers obtained the identification of the victim who was riding in the auto as a passenger and conducted a warrant search on her is highly irregular and not consistent with good policing.

• a pattern of lax and, at times, seemingly non-existent supervision.

• Officers MCCOY and PAV were not concerned that their supervisor might check on them while they were on patrol.

• Why was there no T-Stop entry made during the traffic stop?

• Where is Officer PAV’s Memorandum Book?

• Contributing factors:

  • Lapses in SCPD supervision

  • Violations of SCPD policies and procedures and law enforcement accreditation standards

  • Flawed SCPD policies

  • Officer misconduct

• it seems that the culture of the First Precinct contributed to this incident. There seemed to be a lack of vigilance regarding supervision and prisoner processing.

Excerpts of memorandum of March 29, 2017 FBI interview of victim:

Next, MCCOY undid his (MCCOY’s) pant zipper and leaned his (MCCOY’s) back against the Interrogation Room’s door.  MCCOY then grabbed [VICTIM’s] jaw and pulled her [VICTIM] down towards his genitals.  [VICTIM] stated she [VICTIM] was in a squatting position after MCCOY pulled her downwards.  MCCOY did not say anything to [VICTIM] as this occurred.  [VICTIM] noticed MCCOY had on bright blue boxer briefs.  [VICTIM] explained the color reminded her [VICTIM] of the shade of blue worn by Superman.

[VICTIM] was then forced to perform oral sex on MCCOY.  [VICTIM] stated that as she [VICTIM] was forced to perform oral sex she [Victim] began to gag.  This gagging caused [VICTIM] to cry.  Eventually, MCCOY stated that he was about to ejaculate.  [VICTIM] attempted to pull away but MCCOY pulled [VICTIM] back to his (MCCOY’s) penis.  [VICTIM] stated MCCOY ejaculated into her [VICTIM’s] mouth and surrounding area.  [VICTIM] explained the sweater she [VICTIM] was wearing at the time was exposed to spit, tears, and semen.  The sweater was lavender in color.  [VICTIM] stated the sweater was completely wet on her [VICTIM’s] upper left chest near her [VICTIM’s] heart after MCCOY ejaculated.  Nevertheless, the sweater did not appear discolored or wet because of the sweater’s material.

After MCCOY ejaculated, he (MCCOY) told [VICTIM] to clean up using a roll of tissue paper that was on the Interrogation Room desk.  [VICTIM] used the tissue paper to wipe off her face.  MCCOY intently watched [VICTIM] clean up and throw away the tissue paper.  MCCOY also used the tissue paper to clean himself (MCCOY) off.  [Victim] did not believe MCCOY used the same roll of tissue paper as [VICTIM].  MCCOY also threw away his (MCCOY’s) used tissue paper into the Interrogation Room’s trash can.  MCCOY ensured [VICTIM] was presentable and then asked her [VICTIM] if she [VICTIM] was ready.

Excerpts of memorandum of April 26, 2017 FBI interview of SCPD Police Officer Mark Pav, who was Officer McCoy’s partner on the day of the sexual assault:

                PAV stated MCCOY seemed to have a heightened sex drive.  PAV explained MCCOY frequently discussed how he (MCCOY) watched pornography and masturbated on a daily basis.  Additionally, MCCOY frequently commented on attractive women that they (PAV and MCCOY) encountered throughout their work day.  MCCOY also attempted to look up, on Instagram and other social media sites, attractive women that he (MCCOY) and PAV pulled over. 

PAV stated he (PAV) and MCCOY did not use memo books.  Instead, they (PAV and MCCOY) completed tour reports.  These tour reports were computerized and contained the information that would typically be found in a memo book.  Both PAV and MCCOY did, however, carry and use personal notebooks to record information obtained during their daily tours.
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS

                PAV was asked about confidential informants (Cis). PAV stated the Crime Section did not work CIs. Instead, PAV and MCCOY debriefed arrestees and others in an effort to vet their usefulness and willingness to cooperate.  If PAV and MCCOY deemed a particular arrestee of possible value, they (PAV and MCCOY) passed the arrestee’s information to detectives.

                Later, PAV was put in touch with the union’s law firm, DAVIS & FERBER.  PAV stated DAVIS & FERBER had a contract with the Suffolk County Police Benevolent Association (PBA).  Eventually, PBA representative LOU TUTONE contacted LA PINTA [Tony La Pinta, attorney for Mark Pav].  PAV and LA PINTA explained PAV was required by the PBA to sign a promissory note that triggered a financial obligation if PAV acknowledged any wrongdoing.

Excerpts of memorandum of April 6, 2017 FBI interview of SCPD Police Officer Christopher McCoy

MCCOY acknowledged arresting [Victim]; MCCOY believes [VICTIM] was arrested for outstanding warrants.  MCCOY was shown photos of [VICTIM] and identified [VICTIM] in the photos . . . Agents explained that there was a complaint alleging that [VICTIM] performed oral sex on MCCOY while [VICTIM] was in custody.  MCCOY denied the allegation.  When asked to explain his interaction with [VICTIN], MCCOY advised that he was involved in a vehicle stop in which [VICTIM] was a passenger.  MCCOY conducted a pat down of [VICTIM] and, just prior to placing [VICTIM] in the rear passenger seat of the police vehicle, asked [VICTIM] if there was anything on her person.  [VICTIM] indicated that she had money in her bra.  When MCCOY requested [VICTIM] shake out her bra, [VICTIM] pulled her shirt down and exposed her breasts to MCCOY.

When asked if there would be any reason MCCOY’s DNA would be found in the areas of the precinct he and [VICTIM] had been or on [VICTIM’s] person, MCCOY responded in the negative.  Agents explained that DNA swabs would be collected from MCCOY.  Additionally, Agents explained to MCCOY that the FBI was in possession of the sweater worn by [the victim] on the day of her arrest; MCCOY was shown a photo taken of a lavender sweater under an alternative light source . . . At that point, MCCOY was asked again if there would be any reason his DNA would be found.  MCCOY responded by saying, “maybe”.  Agents asked MCCOY to explain what happened between him and [VICTIM].

MCCOY remained outside his residence, paced back and forth and made comments such as, “I’m fucked”, “I’m going to lose my job, my kids”.  MCCOY then said, “ok, let’s start over.  Forget the first 10 minutes.” MCCOYU indicated that he did not want to lie to the FBI and asked that Agents not make the situation more difficult for him . . .

At some point around 2:00pm, or between the hours of 1:00pm and 3:00pm, [VICTIM], MCCOY and PAV, entered the Juvenile Room to discuss possible cooperation with [Victim].  MCCOY, PAV and [VICTIM] were in the Juvenile Room for approximately 20 to 20 minutes.  After about 20 minutes, PAV exited the room to talk to the Narcotics Unit.  [VICTIM] and MCCOY continued to flirt while working.  MCCOY described the work they were doing as searching for houses from which [VICTIM] would be able to purchase marijuana [emphasis added].  MCCOY was seated on one side of the desk, facing a window to the outside.  [VICTIM] again pulled down her shirt and asked MCCOY if he liked her “tits”.  At some point, MCCOY walked around the desk to view [VICTIM’s] telephone; [VICTIM] was looking at photos of the aforementioned houses. MCCOY recalls looking at a house on [redacted] and looking at a satellite view of a house on [redacted].  While standing next to [VICTIM], [VICTIM] began rubbing MCCOY’s thigh and crotch area.  [VICTIM] then unzipped MCCOY’s pants, pulled out MCCOY’s penis and performed oral sex on MCCOY.  [VICTIM] was sitting in a chair before moving to a squatting position.  MCCOY’s back was to the door and [VICTIM] was in front of MCCOY, facing the door.  MCCOY ejaculated in [VICTIM’s] mouth.  MCCOY did not provide [VICTIM] with anything to clean herself.  MCCOY and [VICTIM] did not speak or make any comments during the entire encounter.  This was the only time [VICTIM] and MCCOY were in the Juvenile room.

Excerpts of memorandum of June 9, 2017 FBI interview of SCPD Police Officer Michael F. Axelson

On March 16, 2017, AXELSON was working in a two man patrol car in the First Precinct . . . On the above date, AXELSON was partnered with DAVID CHOLDEN (CHOLDEN).  At some point during their shift, AXELSON and CHOLDEN were called into the precinct to transport two female prisoners from the First Precinct to the Fourth Precinct . . .

AXELSON does not know MCCOY or MCCOY’s former partner MARK PAV.  [w]ith regard to rumors, AXELSON initially heard that someone from the First Precinct was processing an arrest, took the arrestee into the “JAS” room or Juvenile Room and received oral sex.  Early on, AXELSON heard that the interaction was consensual; however, pointed out that from a police officer’s point of view, the interaction could not have been consensual.  AXELSON also heard that the female wanted bail in exchange for giving MCCOY oral sex.

AXELSON was contacted by the union and reminded that he has a right to representation when being questioned regarding the investigation.  The union representative, CHRIS WOLFE, told AXELSON that his (AXELSON) name was discussed with regard to the MCCOY investigation. 

AXELSON heard that MCCOY willingly spoke to the government without representation.  AXELSON indicated that MCCOY’s actions prompted the Union to reach out the [to] him (AXELSON) to remind AXELSON that he has a right to have representation present.

Additional Reporting:

A Suffolk officer sexually abused a prisoner. His partner was never punished for breaking rules meant to protect her

Former Suffolk cop sentenced to prison for civil rights violation

LI woman describes emotional trauma of sexual attack in police station by Suffolk officer

Resources:

Redacted Memoranda of FBI Interviews

Chris McCoy Text Messages

Complaint and Affidavit in Support of Arrest of Christopher McCoy

Deposition of SCPD Sgt. Michael Bieber

Transcript of Deposition Testimony of Mark Pav – Part 1