Troopers accused of cheating

By PAUL E. KOSTYU

A judge said the test is so easy ‘even a dummy like me could pass it.’

COLUMBUS — Why might Highway Patrol troopers in the Canton area cheat on an exam so easy that even non-law-enforcement people can pass it, even without studying?

That’s one of the head-scratchers coming out of the report released this week by Ohio Inspector General Thomas P. Charles alleging that troopers who work out of the patrol’s Canton post cheated on an exam to certify that they know how to use breath analysis equipment in drunken-driving arrests.

“There’s really no need to bring a cheat sheet into a test like that,” Massillon Municipal Judge Edward Elum said Thursday. “It’s so easy even a dummy like me can pass it. Nobody can understand why [they cheated].”

Perry Township Police Chief Timothy Escola took the test many times during his 28 years as a state trooper. The test is easy, he said, because it has the same questions every year.

“It’s very disturbing,” Escola said. “I don’t like to see that. I know most of those officers. They’re smart, intelligent officers who don’t need to take answers into the test with them.”

Lt. Tony Bradshaw of the Highway Patrol, who has fielded numerous questions over two days about the alleged cheating, simply said: “It is what it is.”

In his report, Charles accused 12 troopers and a Jackson Township police officer of cheating on an annual exam to certify that they know how to use breath analysis equipment during drunken-driving arrests.

The report alleges that Trooper Anthony Maroon of North Canton made copies of his answer sheet during an exam in March 2007 and that he later shared the answers with other troopers. Investigators concluded that troopers cheated on six dates when the test was administered at the patrol’s Canton post, on Shuffel Drive just west of Interstate 77.

Five supervising sergeants did nothing to stop the cheating even though they knew that troopers had answer sheets and that some sergeants were present when Maroon passed out copies to colleagues, according to the report.

Investigators found no evidence of cheating at other testing sites in Ohio.

With the investigation over, criminal defense lawyers say its suggestion that cheating may have marred trooper breath-test certifications could hurt drunken-driving cases pending in the six municipal courts in Stark and Summit counties that handle most DUI arrests originating in the patrol’s Canton post.

In April, Elum said, he advised an attorney in his courtroom he might want to do some research before entering a plea for a client facing a driving-under-the-influence charge. At the time, the state’s inspector general had launched his investigation into the alleged cheating.

Lawyers said the alleged cheating has raised questions about whether DUI convictions can be overturned, whether troopers can be charged with perjury, and whether they may face civil liability from the people they have arrested.

“They’ve opened a can of worms,” said John Morris, an Alliance attorney who was a prosecutor in the 1970s. He said troopers should “’fess up.”

“When they get on the stand, they should say ‘I’m certified [to operate a breath analysis machine], but I cheated on the exam,’” said Morris, who took and passed the exam years ago as a “guinea pig.”

He said the Highway Patrol, which is conducting its own investigation, “has a duty to tell the courts if there is testimony that could have been perjured as to whether people were actually qualified.”

But Elum and others said it’s defense attorneys who must raise questions about a trooper’s truthfulness. They could seek new trials for decided cases or challenge current cases.

“There’s no doubt that defense attorneys will try to use this against them,” Escola said, adding that the alleged cheating reflects badly on the patrol and other law enforcement officers.

“It’s very hard to reopen a case where the sentence has been carried out,” Morris said. “It’s water under the dam.”

Elum, who took and passed the exam as a young prosecutor, said defense lawyers in Stark County are aggressive, often challenging troopers.

“Even without the report, the state patrol is subject to cross examination,” Elum said. “We have checks and balances.”

Without the breath test as evidence, Morris said, defense attorneys substantially increase their chances of winning DUI cases.

Bradshaw said all troopers who operate on the road have to take the exam. Bradshaw said he studied for and passed the exam when he had road duty. Staff officers are not required to take it.

Elum said he thought the inspector general’s investigation “blew it up more than it should be.”

Bradshaw said the range of punishment the troopers face extends from nothing to firing. Elum said firing would be “too harsh.”

“I feel bad that careers are at stake,” said Elum, who has been ticketed by troopers. “I feel bad for everyone involved because they’re good people. There’s no evil motive. There’s no criminal liability.

“The Highway Patrol has a long, honorable tradition. This is disappointing. They will run from this and be better for it. There’s no better law enforcement I’ve been associated with.”

Julie Leggett, an executive with the Ohio affiliate of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said she hopes “the bad choices of the few do not overshadow the diligence of all the other law enforcement who are doing things as they are supposed to.”

A call to the Canton post seeking comment from its commander and the troopers named in the inspector general’s report was referred to Bradshaw.

Jackson Township Police Officer Todd Macaluso is among those accused in the blood alcohol content recertification test scandal. His name was released Thursday by Chief Harley Neftzer. Macaluso was hired by the Jackson Township Police Department in November 1994.

“Our department has initiated an administrative investigation as to the extent of Officer Macaluso’s alleged misconduct,” Neftzer said in a written statement. “Upon the conclusion of the investigation, we will take the appropriate administrative action to address any substantiated misconduct.”