Feds clear RI cop in handling of drug probe

PROVIDENCE, R.I.—A Providence police sergeant showed a "lack of diligence" in his handling of a drug investigation but did not break any laws and should not face any criminal charges, federal investigators said Friday.

The investigators found no evidence that Sgt. Scott Partridge had knowingly lied at a court hearing last year or had intentionally delayed turning over surveillance reports and handwritten notes from a drug case. But they also faulted the department's handling of the case and said reforms were needed to better protect defendants' rights.

A spokeswoman for Police Chief Dean Esserman did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment, and a phone message left for Partridge at the department was also not immediately returned.

Partridge testified at an evidence suppression hearing in July 2007 that he didn't have any notes or reports from his investigation of a drug defendant named Khalid Mason, who was charged in federal court in Providence.

But the following month, soon before Mason was to stand trial, Partridge came forward with a file of documents -- including 12 surveillance reports and handwritten notes from the case -- that he said he had found in a box in his attic.

Prosecutors were forced to drop charges against Mason because of the late document discovery, and a federal judge strongly rebuked Partridge and the police department for what he said was shoddy police work and lax record-keeping.

The judge, William Smith, recommended that federal investigators look into Partridge's testimony and his handling of the case, saying it was "incredible" the documents had suddenly turned up after Partridge claimed they didn't exist.

Investigators from the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Hampshire handled the investigation because Rhode Island prosecutors had brought the original drug case against Mason and a co-defendant, Derrick Isom.

The investigators, in a 13-page report Friday, found no criminal wrongdoing by Partridge and said there was no basis for any criminal charges.

The investigators said Partridge had reason to believe, as he testified last year, that no notes or surveillance reports existed since he had been unable to find them during an initial search of his attic. Partridge said he found the documents only after a higher-ranking officer told him to search his attic again.

But the report does not completely vindicate the department.

It said the problem occurred because of a lack of diligence by Partridge, confusion over the police department's policy on retaining records and because of new procedures in Partridge's unit that required detectives to submit surveillance reports before applying for a warrant.

It also said Partridge apparently violated police department policy by removing Mason's file from the department's narcotics unit, which he was part of when he investigated the case.

"This investigation would likely have been unnecessary had Partridge and others acted with greater diligence in their search for records and had appropriate record retention and discovery policies been in place and enforced by the Providence Police Department," the report said.

An attorney for Mason declined to comment, saying he had not read the report.