When a Police Department Treats Alleged Crimes as Customer Service Requests
The Record Does Not Describe a Complaint. It Describes an Alleged Crime.
By Aaron Knapp
Investigative Journalist
Licensed Social Worker, State of Ohio
Founder and Editor, Unplugged with Knapp
Knapp Unplugged Media LLC
What is laid out in the email chain and the attached materials is not a routine citizen grievance about tone, professionalism, or discretionary policing. The allegations described by Garon Petty and summarized by Attorney Robert Gargasz assert sworn false statements to a judge, initiation of criminal charges without factual basis, and the orchestration of a prosecution at the direction of a superior. Those are not internal policy deviations. They are allegations of criminal conduct carried out under color of law.
Ohio law draws a sharp and consequential distinction between administrative misconduct and criminal wrongdoing by a public officer. Ohio Revised Code 2921.13 addresses falsification, including knowingly making a false statement under oath in an official proceeding. Ohio Revised Code 2921.44 addresses dereliction of duty, prohibiting a public servant from recklessly failing to perform a duty expressly imposed by law. Ohio Revised Code 2923.32 and 2923.34 address patterns of corrupt activity when conduct is coordinated, repeated, and undertaken to effect an unlawful objective. None of these statutes contemplate that a citizen must first complete a departmental complaint form before a chief acts.
The allegation here is that Lieutenant Morris provided sworn testimony to Judge Elwell that was directly contradicted by the city’s own video, and that he initiated or advanced criminal charges against a citizen without personal knowledge of any factual basis, allegedly under instruction to “make it happen.” If true, those facts implicate the integrity of the criminal process itself. They trigger a duty to investigate that exists independent of whether a citizen fills out a form.
Why the “Please Fill Out the Complaint Form” Response Matters
The response sent by Lieutenant Kyle Gelenius on behalf of the Office of the Chief of Police does not deny the substance of the allegation. It does not address the sworn testimony. It does not acknowledge the existence of video evidence that allegedly contradicts that testimony. It does not state that the matter has been referred for criminal investigation. Instead, it reframes the issue as an “officer complaint” and routes it into standard internal protocols.
That reframing is not neutral. It is consequential.
When a police department treats an allegation of perjury and fabricated criminal process as an administrative complaint, it collapses the distinction between misconduct and crime. It converts a potential criminal referral into a customer service workflow. In doing so, it risks violating Ohio Revised Code 2921.44 by failing to perform a non discretionary duty to act when credible evidence of criminal conduct by an officer is presented.
Internal affairs processes exist to address violations of policy and discipline. They are not a substitute for criminal investigation. They are not a shield against external review. They are certainly not a prerequisite imposed on a citizen before a chief acknowledges or refers alleged crimes committed by his own officers.
The Chief’s Duty Is Triggered by Knowledge, Not by Paperwork
Ohio law does not condition a police chief’s duty to act on whether a citizen completes an internal complaint form. The duty arises when the chief has knowledge, or reasonably should have knowledge, of facts indicating that a crime may have been committed. Here, the chief and his command staff were provided with sworn testimony, video evidence, and a specific allegation that the testimony was false and material.
At that point, the question is not whether the complainant has used the proper form. The question is whether the department will take steps to preserve evidence, identify conflicts of interest, and refer the matter to an independent investigative authority if necessary. Failure to do so does not merely reflect poor administration. It risks becoming participation after the fact.
Ohio Revised Code 2921.32 addresses obstruction of justice, including actions taken with purpose to hinder the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, or punishment of another for crime. While the statute requires specific intent, the factual inquiry begins with what was known, when it was known, and what was done or not done in response.
The Question Raised About Chief Failing Is Not Speculative
Attorney Gargasz’s question is pointed and appropriate. Did Chief Failing participate in the alleged conspiracy, or is he now seeking to cover it up after the fact. That is not rhetoric. It is the logical inquiry that follows when a chief is presented with prima facie evidence of false sworn testimony by a subordinate and responds by directing the complainant to an administrative form rather than initiating or referring a criminal investigation.
At minimum, the record raises a duty to interview witnesses, secure and review the video evidence, and document the decision making process. If the chief declines to do so, that decision itself becomes part of the evidentiary trail. Chiefs do not insulate themselves from liability by doing nothing. In some circumstances, doing nothing is the act.
This Is How Civil Rights Violations Become Institutional Acts
Civil rights violations under federal law do not require dramatic conspiracies. They often arise from ordinary decisions repeated in predictable ways. An officer provides false testimony. A supervisor orders action without basis. A chief declines to intervene. A department redirects accountability into internal channels that never produce independent scrutiny.
Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, liability attaches when a person acting under color of law deprives another of rights secured by the Constitution. Supervisory liability can arise where a supervisor knew of unconstitutional conduct and was deliberately indifferent to it. Municipal liability can arise when the failure to act reflects a policy, practice, or custom.
The email chain documents the early stages of that analysis. It shows notice. It shows a response. It shows a choice.
Why This Deserves Public Scrutiny, Not Quiet Processing
What happened on July 1, 2024 did not end with a courtroom appearance. It continues in how the department responds to evidence that its own narrative may be false. Transparency is not achieved by routing allegations into opaque internal processes and hoping they fade. Transparency is achieved by acknowledging when allegations exceed the scope of internal discipline and require external investigation.
Citizens are not required to prosecute police crimes themselves. They are not required to plead with the same institution accused of wrongdoing to police itself correctly. When credible evidence of perjury and fabricated criminal process is presented, the obligation to act belongs to those entrusted with authority.
This record shows a moment where that obligation was tested. The response chosen tells its own story.
Aaron Knapp is an investigative journalist and licensed social worker whose work focuses on government accountability, civil rights, public records compliance, and institutional misconduct in Ohio. His reporting is grounded in primary source documentation, sworn testimony, court records, and contemporaneous communications obtained through lawful public records requests and litigation. His work has been cited in court filings, administrative complaints, and oversight proceedings and is published independently through Unplugged with Knapp and affiliated platforms.
Final Thought
What this record ultimately exposes is not a paperwork dispute or a misunderstanding about process. It exposes a fault line in how power is exercised and how accountability is avoided when that power is challenged. When a sworn allegation supported by video evidence is met not with investigation but with a form letter and an attachment, the message is unmistakable. The institution has chosen containment over truth.
No citizen should be required to navigate an internal administrative maze in order to trigger a criminal inquiry into alleged perjury and fabricated charges. That inversion of responsibility is not accidental. It is structural. It shifts the burden away from those vested with authority and places it on the very people alleging harm, effectively conditioning accountability on endurance rather than evidence.
If a police officer’s own report and sworn testimony are contradicted by objective video, the obligation to act does not belong to the complainant. It belongs to the command staff who now possess that knowledge. At that point, silence is no longer neutrality. Delay is no longer prudence. Inaction becomes a decision with legal and moral consequences.
This is how civil rights violations persist without ever announcing themselves as such. They are normalized through procedure, insulated by protocol, and softened by bureaucratic language until the underlying act is no longer debated at all. What remains is a record that shows who was informed, what they were shown, and how they responded.
The question is no longer whether the evidence exists. The question is whether those entrusted with public power are willing to confront what it shows, or whether this moment will be added to the growing file of instances where accountability was deferred until it was no longer possible to deny, and no longer possible to undo.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is published for informational, journalistic, and public accountability purposes only. It is based on contemporaneous emails, sworn testimony, publicly available video evidence, and statements made by named individuals in official capacities. All factual assertions are drawn from source materials believed to be accurate at the time of publication. Where allegations of misconduct or criminal behavior are discussed, they are reported as allegations supported by referenced records and are not findings of guilt.
Nothing contained herein constitutes legal advice, medical advice, clinical assessment, or professional counseling. The author is not acting as an attorney in this publication and does not provide legal representation through this work. Readers are encouraged to consult qualified legal counsel for advice regarding any legal matters discussed.
This reporting addresses matters of public concern involving public officials and public employees acting under color of law. Commentary and analysis are protected expressions of opinion based on disclosed facts, consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and applicable Ohio law.
Social Work Ethics and Role Clarification Disclaimer
Although the author is a licensed social worker, this article does not constitute social work practice, clinical evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, or therapeutic intervention. No professional social work services are being provided to any individual referenced. Any discussion of ethics, duty, or professional responsibility is grounded in publicly available standards, statutes, and ethical frameworks for contextual analysis only.
The author’s ethical obligations as a licensed social worker are governed by the NASW Code of Ethics and Ohio licensure law. This publication reflects independent journalistic activity and advocacy for transparency and civil rights and should not be construed as acting on behalf of any client, employer, or agency unless expressly stated.
AI and Media Use Disclosure
Some images, graphics, or illustrative media associated with this article may be enhanced, stylized, or generated using artificial intelligence tools for visual presentation purposes only. AI generated or modified images are not intended to depict actual events, individuals, or scenes with photographic accuracy unless explicitly stated. All documentary evidence, quotations, transcripts, and factual claims are derived from real source materials, not AI generated content.
Liability and Fair Comment Notice
All individuals and entities named are referenced in connection with their public roles, official actions, or statements reflected in the cited record. The author welcomes correction of factual errors supported by verifiable documentation. Requests for clarification or correction may be submitted in writing.
This publication reserves all rights. Unauthorized reproduction without attribution is prohibited.
About The Author
