By Quan Truong,
A former Wheaton police officer
fired for watching pornography in his cruiser is fighting to receive disability
pension pay.
Thomas Sommerfield was
terminated earlier this year after an internal investigation showed he had been
watching pornography in his cruiser, according to records obtained by the
Tribune. Sommerfield, a 23-year veteran patrol officer, was among the officers
who were honored last year for arresting a man in a shooting incident.
Sommerfield is claiming a
psychological disability, said Richard Reimer, attorney for the pension board.
Reimer would not discuss specifics of the case or comment because it is
pending. In general, he said, line-of-duty disability pension benefits offer 65
percent of the officer's salary and non-duty disability pension pays out 50
percent.
Sommerfield's last annual
salary with the city was $87,339, according to Wheaton city officials.
His disability pension claim
case is pending before the Wheaton Police Pension Fund Board. Messages left for
Sommerfield and his pension attorney were not returned. The case was last heard
by the board on July 1, when members ruled the city of Wheaton can participate
in Sommerfield's hearing despite his objections. A date for the next hearing
has not been set.
These types of claims typically
can take from three to nine months, Reimer said.
Sommerfield was dismissed after
a motorist told city officials in September that he was stopped at Main and
Front streets behind a cruiser and saw the officer inside looking at
pornography on his laptop. The citizen e-mailed the mayor, and an internal
investigation was launched, according to city records.
"The city promptly and
thoroughly investigated the underlying matter and based upon the investigation,
the chief discharged the police officer," City Attorney Jim Knippen said.
"We have no further comment at this time based on other pending legal
matters." Other Wheaton city officials have declined to comment on the
matter.
The computer from the cruiser
that Sommerfield used was removed for forensics analysis, which later showed
that the officer used it to access pornographic websites between May and
October of 2013.
The analysis found 25 pictures
on the computer depicting nudity and/or graphic sexual activity and four video
fragments that had been deleted, according to reports. It also found that two
websites were visited hundreds of times and a third was visited over 60 times.
The website Craigslist had also been visited and, during a January
interrogation, Sommerfield admitted to looking at escort services but said he
never acted on them or made contact.
Sommerfield later admitted he
had been accessing the websites for several years using the in-vehicle computer
and deleting the browser's web history, according to documents provided by the
city.
Sommerfield also admitted to
falsifying department records using his in-car computer to show he was on other
duties such as extra watches while using part of the time to look at escort
sites and pornographic material on the computer, according to a transcript of a
January interrogation.
The documents show he said he
has been diagnosed by a doctor with conditions that could have affected the
behavior, although medical details of the diagnosis were taken out of the
interrogation transcript that was released to the Tribune. In the transcript,
Sommerfield said he had been taking medication and that his doctor said any
addictive traits would be intensified if those medications were out of balance.
Sommerfield was fired on Jan.
22.
"Your conduct included a
pattern of intentional deceptions which are wholly inconsistent with the
fundamental integrity required of a sworn officer by the public as well as the
Department," a memo stated.
The city has filtering
capacities on police computers but can't use the same blocking software that is
on other city computers, Knippen said.
"The police have to have
the ability to use the computers in the investigation of criminal activities,
and placing those locks on police computers could interfere with police
investigation," he said.
He added that any sort of
monitoring has to be done in-house, and when there is some type of evidence
indicating it is necessary.
"There's sensitive
identifying information in those computers which should not be available to
people outside the department," he said.
