Cleveland Police Officer Suspended Over Text Message | Internal Affairs Interview

Internal Affairs investigations are often shielded from public scrutiny, not subject to disclosure exempt from disclosure as “personnel records” or similar. The details, however, vary by state, and in some cases the public is afforded insight into police oversight.

Here is one such instance, coming your way out of Cleveland, Ohio — and with an interesting twist.

Officer Aaron Petitt was suspended for six days in part as a result of the text messages referenced in this interview. (The suspension also covered Petitt failing to deescalate and failing to cover his tattoos in relation to a separate incident.) But that wasn’t the end of it.

After his suspension Petitt filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Cleveland, alleging unfair punishment and pointing to another officer who was only sent to “sensitivity training” for using overtly racist slurs against black people. Petit maintained that “Hajji” is not a word he ever knew to be derogatory, stating that he was explicitly instructed by the Army to use the word during his four tours in Afghanistan and Iraq as an Army Ranger like Jeremy Dewitte, only real.

Petitt’s complaint alleged free speech and due process violations by the City of Cleveland.

On 4/10/19 US District Judge James S. Gwin issued an order disposing of the the case. In relevant part, he wrote as follows:

“On April 3, 2018, the City disciplinarily charged Petitt with using “disparaging remarks when referencing an Arabic male during a potential police action.” Cleveland Police Department rules prohibit officers from using “epithets, terms or words which tend to denigrate any person(s) due to their race.” It also charged Petitt with failing to de-escalate and failing to cover arm tattoos during an October 25, 2017 encounter.
. . . .
In May 2018, the Cleveland Police Chief found Petitt guilty of all charges and suspended him for six days. Plaintiffs then brought this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the City’s actions violated Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech and due process rights.
. . . .
The Constitution prohibits the state from punishing citizens for protected speech. To make out a First Amendment claim as a public employee, Petitt must show that: (i) he was speaking about a matter of public concern, (ii) he was speaking as a private citizen, and (iii) his interests in that speech outweigh the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting public service efficiency. Petitt fails each step.
. . . .
Third, Petitt’s interest in using an arguably offensive epithet barely registers as an interest at all. To the extent it is an interest, it is easily outweighed by Defendant’s interest in prohibiting its officers from using offensive language. Accordingly, Petitt’s freedom of speech claim fails.
. . . .
The City’s discipline does seem overblown. Petitt had sent one seemingly private text message to another officer with an only-arguably insulting ethnic reference. No public statement was made. Petitt’s reference to “tune up” a citizen, an apparent reference to using force on the citizen, seems more offensive. But this does not make out a substantive due process claim. Public employers make suspect employee decisions without necessarily running afoul of the Constitution. . . .In any event, the City’s decision falls far short of the extreme executive abuse required.
. . . .
Also, the City found that Petitt had failed to cover his tattoos and failed to de-escalate. Failing to cover his tattoos was a Group I violation, warranting a maximum five-day suspension. Failure to deescalate was either a Group I or II violation, warranting either a maximum five-day suspension or minimum six-day suspension, respectively. These additional charges undercut the severity of Petitt’s six-day suspension. . . Although the City may have overreacted, Petitt’s substantive due process claim fails. . . . ”


If you are wondering why the officer’s face is blurred, that is an almost-certainly-illegal practice of the City of Cleveland. For more information see [Every time I explain this, a group of selectively-literate people shows up to explain the City’s logic, ignoring the reality that I linked to an article clearly explaining it. Read the linked article if you want to understand what’s going on. Don’t just guess.]


/r/realworldpolice (New!)



Want to help make Real World Police happen and get rewarded for it? Become a Sergeant on Patreon today! Sergeants get access to:

-A growing library of more than sixty exclusive full-length Real World Police videos
-The Roadcam series
-Supporting documentation: police reports, court records, and other investigatory material
-Material from cases not shown on the main channel, like the arrest of Chris Hansen and the detention of T-Pain by TSA.
-Early access to some videos
-And more!

Get your fix today!

Rather not?

No sweat! There are more than 600 free videos to enjoy ✌️

** (Disclaimer: This video content is intended for educational and informational purposes only) **

Author: rafael.nieves


45 thoughts on “Cleveland Police Officer Suspended Over Text Message | Internal Affairs Interview

  1. The text messages sounds like a joke that's he should have said instead of tough guy talk he even had the defense of a joke by saying hahaha at the end of the message

  2. Not following this exactly. Why wasn't the original text messenger also reprimanded the same if not more so than this guy? (If deemed an inappropriate conversation it started with the instigator … Not the responder; who is now put or placed in protective mode.)

    Were there any middle eastern men? Were they ever causing any trouble? Why would he send such a text message if not?

    The receiver of this information sworn to protect and serve; in this day and age, naturally might need/want more clarification on "causing trouble"? Drunk and Disorderly, Fighting, Robbing someone, Protesting the establishment … Or, are they huddled around angrily screaming religious banter at others with backpacks on (or swords in their hand)?

    Technically speaking the receiver of the message wouldn't know. Needs to ask. (Did he? 50/50. Could have been done better. Agree.)

    [Are their codes or protocols in place to decipher every day mischief or trouble; by any ethnicity vs a pending attack – a real threat situation?]

    But, why such a message sent in the first place?! He doesn't get a free pass.

    For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.

    Person B would not have said what he said at that moment had it not been for what person A did (said).

    Person B had a choice.

    As did person A.

  3. They hate us all. Make no mistake. Textbook Honorable Men material here. (No pun intended). Once while being arrested I told a cop I was once in the military. HD. He told me "You're not there now". Glad this one was held to the same standards.

  4. our police officers are now told to be little school teachers……our country is a bunch of babies who cry when they don't like hearing certain things….we will be taken over in less then 20 years… Russia China or by Mexico

  5. PREPARE YOUR ROCKS AND VEGETABLES to throw at me…these are decent guys…and this guy did nothing really. My son is a retired corpsman and "Haji" is a commonly used phrase in the middle-east…
    This officer didn't even show up at the scene and the drunk, belligerent A-hole left the area…

  6. Haji is the pilgrimage that a Muslim man makes to Mecca. So how stupid people turned this into a slur is just ridiculous. It's the epitome of ignorant American attitudes, that have no clue what they are even saying. So unsurprising really.

Leave a Reply