Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

Deputy fired after drunken quarrel with girlfriend

By Daniel J. Chacon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 9, 2009 at 12:17 p.m.
Updated January 9, 2009 at 12:40 p.m.

Text size  

More Local News

More stories »

A longtime Denver sheriff's deputy who was fired after police placed him in detox following a drunken quarrel with his girlfriend is fighting to keep his job, according to city documents.

The Sheriff's Department fired Thomas Cullen III when it discovered that he had called in sick with a migraine headache July 15, the same day that Westminster police put him in a detox center.

The department contends that Cullen, "who is an alcoholic by admission," violated an agreement to refrain from alcohol and Career Service rules that prohibit "dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the department or city," according to city documents.

Cullen, however, maintains that he called in sick "because he was indeed suffering from a migraine," documents state.

But the city asserts that Cullen didn't go into work because he was still under the influence.

Cullen and attorneys for the city will hash it out at a hearing scheduled for Feb. 25 and Feb. 27.

The city asked a Career Service hearing officer to force Cullen to sign a release "for all records" that involve him at the Washington House Detox Center between July 15 and July 16. The hearing officer approved the city's request.

Cullen has been in trouble at work before, documents state.

In 2003, the department placed him on administrative leave without pay after he was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence, documents state.

Cullen was placed on leave to give him time to modify a restraining order filed against him so he could carry a firearm, which is a requirement of the job.

Cullen appealed the department's decision to place him on leave without pay, and he won.

A hearing officer ruled that the department "failed to provide the required process" under Career Service rules and ordered the department to give Cullen back pay.

Cullen also misses a lot of work, documents state.

Cullen "had a history of using all of his leave as fast as it accrued," the documents state.

In 2003 and 2004, he was absent more than he worked, although more than half of the 860 hours he missed in 2004 were authorized under the Family and Medical Leave Act, documents state.

"However, by July 19, 2004, (Cullen) had exhausted 12 weeks of FMLA leave and did not return to work as ordered," documents state.

Sometime after that, Cullen apparently signed a "stipulation and agreement to refrain from alcohol," documents state.

The Sheriff's Department alleges that Cullen violated that agreement July 15.

That's when Westminster police received a call from Cullen's girlfriend, who reported that Cullen was drunk, said Investigator Trevor Materasso, a spokesman for Westminster police.

"She had taken his keys so that he couldn't drive intoxicated, and he was upset about that and took the phone," Materasso said. "There was a verbal altercation between them. It looks like it was a disagreement in regards to children and work and drinking."

Materasso said officers determined that no crime had been committed.

Cullen "was not arrested," he said. "But he was taken into protective custody because of the alcohol intoxication."

Cullen, who has been a deputy for about two decades, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Comments

  • January 9, 2009

    12:29 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gallegoi writes:

    What is he fighting it for? He violated an agreement. Last thing we need is a drunk cop out here. If they give him his job back it would be a grave mistake.

  • January 9, 2009

    12:31 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    leavemealone writes:

    Sorry bud, you lost your job. Now go blow some snow!

  • January 9, 2009

    12:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    vYRaL303 writes:

    any cop that is arrested should be fired on the spot. so this guy should have gotten fired 6 years ago.

  • January 9, 2009

    12:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    cdmdenver writes:

    Don't be suprised if this Cop get his job back...
    Funny how these "Boy's in Blue" sweep things
    under the Rug. They will send Cullen to a magic
    rehab center, they will state he has made a
    miraculous recovery-Job Back with Backpay & Benefits$
    Courtesy of the sucher tax payers in Denver.

  • January 9, 2009

    12:50 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HankReardon writes:

    He's been getting a free ride because he is a cop. Fire him permanently and he will actually land himself in jail soon. His spiralling self-destruction will take him down. He is a repeat offender and a menace to society.

  • January 9, 2009

    12:57 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    outspokengirl123 writes:

    he should be treated like everyone else. According to the rules he has certain standards he has to abide by looks like this isn't his first run in with the law. My opinion he should have been fired a long time ago!

  • January 9, 2009

    1:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    c4l2a0 writes:

    And alcohol is legal....

    Maybe if this A-hole was a pot smoker instead, his life wouldn't be going down the tubes. (if marijuana were legal -- S.A.F.E.R alternative anyone?)

    "In 2003, the department placed him on administrative leave without pay after he was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence, documents state.

    Cullen was placed on leave to give him time to modify a restraining order filed against him so he could carry a firearm, which is a requirement of the job."

    Not exactly sure what is being stated here. Since when does someone have the ability to modify a restraining order that was filed AGAINST them? And for the purpose of being able to carry a firearm?! This makes no sense.

    Was he CONVICTED of domestic violence? Are these two statements a congruent thought?

    This "man" should not be trusted with the public's safety, much less a firearm.

    Damn.

  • January 9, 2009

    1:18 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    c4l2a0 writes:

    And "In 2003 and 2004, he was absent more than he worked"

    ........(speechless)

  • January 9, 2009

    1:18 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ThingFish writes:

    This SOB has probably arrested someone for cannabis in the past. Good riddance.

  • January 9, 2009

    1:33 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Tunlrat writes:

    I agree this guy has a definite problem and shouldn't have a gun. He's not a "cop" protecting the public though. He's a deputy guarding criminals.....No mention on any conviction for DV either. crtf would like him to be a cop so he can spout off his conspiracy theory on Columbine and sexual perversions though.

  • January 9, 2009

    1:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ptcruiser writes:

    He did not get convicted, if he did he would have lost his job, being convicted for a DV is an automatic trip to the unemployment office for a LEO or military member or anyone who carries a firearm for a living(except NFL players). He was a Deputy at the court house, so he was more like a bailiff. Unions serve a purpose, but they also do a disservice by protecting people like him. I certainly wouldn't want him as a partner.

  • January 9, 2009

    1:57 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HSTOWEL writes:

    cdmdenver if he gets his job back it won't be because the cops are covering for him because they are the ones who fired him. It will be because some judge orders him reinstated. Get a clue.

  • January 9, 2009

    2:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    The_KIMN_Chicken writes:

    He should just go work for the Greeley P.D. it's impossible to get fired from there regardless of what anti-social behavor you exhibit.

  • January 9, 2009

    2:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Not_Alike94 writes:

    well at least now we know how the drugs keep getting in jail....

  • January 9, 2009

    2:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Not_Alike94 writes:

    Its not "your" free time when you have certain jobs. That's why they have special charges for people in a position of trust. A teacher, officer, hell even the president can't do things because they are off the clock. You made a commitment in these kinds of positions to be the best at your job and an even better "citizen"

    If he has a restraining order and can't carry a gun, then how will he do his job? if he violated an agreement to refrain from alcohol and Career Service rules that prohibit "dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the department or city it means he doesn't have free time.

  • January 9, 2009

    2:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dannylee5280 writes:

    come on CARREER SERVICE grow some!!! violated 2 executive orders, automatic termination!!!!

  • January 9, 2009

    2:19 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Diff writes:

    Denver law enforcement - this seems about par -

    We need a new head of the public safety and sheriff and cheife of DPD for starters and a much stronger public oversight commission.

  • January 9, 2009

    2:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Slimjim_800 writes:

    He should get his job back. Alcohlism is a disease and you should not be fired because of it. A contract refraining you from having a disease could not be legally enforced.

  • January 9, 2009

    2:51 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cwillyrun1 writes:

    Actually slimjim, it would be no different than any employer giving an addict a second chance and then the addict screws it up, where the employer is well within their rights to fire the employee.

    It's even more important to maintain integrity in law enforcement.... even though I don't believe they have much integrity lately. If he's an alcoholic, he could very well be a danger to citizens...... the citizens he's sworn to protect.

  • January 9, 2009

    3:12 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    philvysor writes:

    He should be given his job back. A restraining order can be issued for a number of things not just a DV. He is innocent until proven guilty.

  • January 9, 2009

    3:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cwillyrun1 writes:

    It's not the restraining order from 2003 that's the issue phil, it's that he broke an agreement to refrain from alcohol use and lied when he said he had a migraine when he was actually in detox.

  • January 9, 2009

    3:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Darwin writes:

    nobodyman writes: But, is he a good cop? That's my only question.

    How are we to know "...In 2003 and 2004, he was absent more than he worked". I sure wouldn't call that a good employee. If he was an employee of mine, he would have been fired a long time ago. I think most of us would agree that if he was working for a company in private industry, he would be long gone. Only in the government do the incompetent survive.

  • January 9, 2009

    4:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mtnsjohn writes:

    Denver Sheriffs deputies do not have powers of arrest. They either work at the courts or the city jail, and a few are out booting cars.

    Blame it on not following the rules that civil service requires. I am also sure the union also supported him by supplying him with an attorney. It should not be this hard to get rid of a slug employee who makes his fellow officers do more than their fair share of the work, and take on more risk when sluggo is home sleeping off a drunk.

  • January 9, 2009

    4:50 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    footballman writes:

    Look, people, you are missing the point. If you think that cops are trying to sweep everything under the rug, you are making a mistake. It does not take a lot to get fired in law enforcement. The department's Internal Investigations will be all over you for every little f''' up you are involved in. They will be pressing hard to get rid of you, and if the union does not back you up, you will be gone. It only looks like cops are trying to cover things up...in reality, cops get fired, reprimanded, mandatory days off all the time. We just don't hear about it often.

  • January 9, 2009

    4:53 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    JohnnyVee writes:

    Once again here we are complaining because he is a Cop. He's a Human Being with faults like the rest of us. Why don't we try supporting the "Brotherhood" instead of having our "mental" guns ready to shoot them down. Thank God I never called in sick due to a hang over. Sic haha

  • January 9, 2009

    4:56 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    vendari01 writes:

    The sad thing is that they did try to get rid of him, and were forced to put him back on duty for not following proper procedures in firing him! Too often, people are reinstated to jobs that involve our safety, but the powers that be, in the unions and such, are less concerned with our safety than in making sure their member keeps his job. It frightens me to wonder if I'll make the call, someday, and they'll have to try to send out someone like him- assuming they can even reach him!

  • January 9, 2009

    5:29 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ROO6894 writes:

    Ok....nothing like several of the misinformed blogging opinions to several more of the uninitiated. It's like reading World Weekly News where BatBoy interviews a few Rocky Mountain News readers about their involvement in the capture of Bigfoot.
    By no means does this apply to all of you but Jeez....people get at least one fact right. Cullen is NOT...NOT...NOT a cop. Is that enough NOTs for some of you? It's like trying to compare a teacher to a school custodian. Yes....they both work for the school but somehow one of those is NOT like the other. So you're not going to call Cullen or ANYONE he works with and have him show up to your door. He is under more scrutiny and has to answer to more layers of bureaucracy than any of us 9-5ers could even imagine. He is afforded (like everyone) correct "due process" for termination at his job. His supervisors and the powers that be don't do it right, that's not on Cullen. If you want to change the process, why don't you try something like (just spitballing here) putting Right to Work on the voters ballot. Oh wait....I think we did that.

  • January 9, 2009

    7:10 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    footballman writes:

    Roo, you are right, as someone mentioned here, he was a deputy at the courthouse. So, unless he has a warrant for your arrest or your eviction notice, chances of seeing him at your door are close to zero. As a deputy sheriff in Denver, this guy does not patrol the streets and does not respond to calls. Sheriffs in Denver mainly handle jails, courts, fugitives, warrants, extraditions and so on. Where I don't agree with you, though, is that he is not a cop. This guy wears a gun and a badge and has authority to arrest people. The fact that he doesn't patrol the streets doesn't make him less of a "cop". If anything, someone is going to have to rely on this guy when s*** hits the fan. Relying on some alcoholic with a weapon is not a good option.

  • January 9, 2009

    7:18 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    The_Punnisher writes:

    It's like the Mafia; once you join the " Brotherhood " you got protection.

    But if you RAT OUT the " Brotherhood " you are fair game...

    And the State of Colorado had the KKK " Brotherhood " running the place in the '20s & '30s....

    And the LEOs like to keep that tradition going....

    " We just have to teach those _______ who is boss around here "

    " We like to BEAT the crowds "

  • January 9, 2009

    8:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    sacaria writes:

    alcohol is a disease- yeah and it is called stupidity. We cannot have cops running around with a history of alcohol ABUSE, and violence against people he claims to love(convicted or not). When he chose to KEEP his job with a stipulation that he not drink - He also AGREED to willingly quit when he went back to alcohol. Now spend 20 years telling it to AA but dont cry to me. Most cops dont follow any laws because they feel, hey they are cops, why should I. They all flaunt their guns around like they are such heroes when they cause way more problems than they ever make PEACEFUL. Drink up buddy - but hey can I have that badge and gun please??

  • January 10, 2009

    5:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    milehiloco writes:

    OK, folks, figure this one out. He is not a cop, he does not arrest people, nor does he have arrest powers. Denver Sheriffs can put you in cuffs until a real DPD cop gets there to arrest you. But a DSD employee can only make "citizen's arrests" which require official pre-notification to authorities. Denver Sherriffs are corrections officers and officers of the court. That's it. That's why they fought so hard to get blue uniforms; so they could look more like cops and feel better about themselves. They have a bad case of badge envy. They so badly want to be be cops, but can't. They can not even file charges against a prisoner who attacks them or throws feces at them at the jail, they have to call the cops and file through them.

    But don't confuse DSD with any other Colorado sheriffs department. All others ARE cops with full cop powers.

  • January 10, 2009

    8:26 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BDC writes:

    Milehiloco, you come across as the one with self-esteem issues. Did a sheriff steal your girlfriend away from you or something? Why all the negativity and seething anger?

  • January 10, 2009

    4:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    footballman writes:

    Milehiloco, before I say anything, I should mention that I'm in no way associated or being a member of the Denver Sheriff Dept. However, you are missing a few important points. First, the uniform change came as a measure to save money for the city. You are going to be surprised but many deputies did not want to change their uniforms...Second, DSD has full authority to make arrests. You need to refer to earlier articles in RMN and catch up on some changes. Third, they are cops with all the authority and power they need to do their job. The only thing you are right about is they cannot file their own paperwork, except general reports about incidents. DPD is the one that files charges for them. Other than that, stay updated and take some chilling pills...you seem a little angry.