Two Troy police officers suspended
Report cites actions that ‘deviated into situations that can be categorized as sexual exploitation.’
TROY — Two Troy police officers have been suspended after an internal investigation found they violated the department’s Canons of Public Ethics, city policy manual and department code of conduct in dealings with two women known to have criminal records.
The investigation’s findings state both officers had initial intentions of assisting the two women in dealing with their addictions.
However, actions “deviated into situations that can be categorized as sexual exploitation, or at minimum grooming for sexual exploitation, which are clearly unethical and bring discredit to the officers and disrepute to the department and city,” Capt. Jeff Kunkleman wrote in the investigation report.
Ptl. Cody Compton was suspended earlier in May for 18 shifts, and Ptl. Lucas Schlumpf was suspended for 12 shifts by Patrick Titterington, the city’s service and safety director. The suspensions followed the recommendations by Police Chief Shawn McKinney, who Titterington said would determine the dates of suspensions.
The officers were serving the suspensions as of Thursday.
Compton has been with the department since January 2017 and Schlumpf since October 2017.
Both officers were found to have had communications with sexual overtones, including receiving and or viewing explicit photographs and/or videos of the women, the internal investigation report said.
Compton’s actions took place between March 2019 and January 2021 and involved two women. Schlumpf ’s actions were between April 2019 and January 2021 and involved one woman. One of the women participated in communications with both officers,
according to the investigation report.
One woman said she first met the officers when they arrested the driver of a car in which she was riding. The other said she met them during their police work, with one officer arresting her several times.
The investigation was initiated late last year when a sheriff ’s deputy transporting one of the women to the state reformatory heard her telling a fellow prisoner about alleged inappropriate conduct by two officers.
In a memo to Titterington, McKinney summarized the investigation involving Compton’s actions, saying he “met with, exchanged text messages, communicated through a variety of apps, had in-person and phone conversations both on and off duty with two women that have records and convictions related to illegal drugs, drug overdoses and other offenses. These communications had sexual overtones to include receiving and/or viewing explicit photographs and/or videos from both women. This communication led these women to believe that they would receive special treatment if they engaged in sexual activities with Officer Compton or that Officer Compton had engaged in sexual activity with others in exchange for beneficial treatment during the investigation of criminal acts.”
The language in the investigation summary for Schlumpf was similar, saying he “met with, communicated through a variety of apps and had in-person conversations, both on- and off-duty with a woman that has records and convictions related to illegal drugs, drug overdoses and other offenses. These communications had sexual context to include receiving and/or viewing explicit photographs and/or videos from her.”
These activities, the memo states, “led this woman to believe that she would receive special treatment if she engaged in sexual activity with Officer Schlumpf or that Officer Schlumpf had engaged in sexual activity with others in exchange for beneficial treatment during the investigation of criminal acts.”
The chief ’s memo further noted Compton requested a friend with records and convictions related to illegal drugs, drug overdoses and other offenses to conduct an “unofficial and non-medically supervised drug detox for one of the women.”
The reports also noted Schlumpf had previously been counseled by Kunkleman about inappropriate relationships, specifically a similar relationship with another woman prior to the incidents leading to this disciplinary action.
The officers were charged with violation of the following ethical policies, code of conduct provisions and the city policy manual: conduct toward the public, gifts and favors, conduct unbecoming a police officer, having continuous association with persons they know are involved in criminal behavior, engaging in sexual misconduct and failing to avoid improper off-duty conduct.