Why Should Delaware Care?
Data and information collected by police often has little oversight, and how long it’s retained remains unclear. The allegations raised in the latest lawsuit over the data practices of the Wilmington Police Department raises Constitutional questions around unreasonable search and seizure as well.
A former Wilmington Police Department internal affairs investigator has sued the city after her intimate images and videos were allegedly disseminated within the department during an investigation.
The lawsuit, filed in Delaware Superior Court on April 16, raises questions about how data is stored within police systems, its management after collection and the conduct of the Wilmington Police Department at the tail-end of the administration of former Police Chief Robert Tracy.
Fray Coleman, a sergeant who served as a Wilmington police officer for more than 23 years and most recently served in the department’s Office of Professional Standards, sued for sexual harassment, discrimination based on race and gender, and retaliation, seeking unspecified lost wages, damages and legal fees.
The lawsuit is a continuation of a case first launched in April 2023 in federal court following the alleged episodes. That case was thrown out by a judge on a technicality, because Coleman could not sue a public entity for discrimination in connection with an employment contract, but its merits were never considered.
The suit
Nearly 17 years ago, Coleman was questioned following the murder of a friend of her daughter’s father. She reportedly denied any knowledge of the murder, but noted rumors that a man named Ramadan Dorsey was involved and that he may be at risk of retaliation.
In February 2008, Dorsey was gunned down on South Market Street and Coleman was again questioned in the cases. She again denied any knowledge and was not charged.
In 2022, former Delaware State Police trooper Stephen Rizzo was hired by WPD to work as a contracted investigator in the department’s Cold Case Unit and reopened investigations into the murders.
Rizzo and Coleman discussed the cases twice in October 2022, and in December of that same year, the Delaware Department of Justice obtained a warrant to search her phone. But according to her lawsuit, Coleman has not seen the affidavit of probable cause used to approve the warrant.
Coleman was placed on administrative leave, and not permitted to collect any of her belongings from her office, the suit said.
She came to learn the phone had been held at the Wilmington Police Department, and was allegedly accessed by people not affiliated with either the cold case investigation or DOJ, the lawsuit alleged.
The phone was allegedly transferred to the New Castle County Police Department for “further inspection” on the orders of a WPD captain, the suit said.
Coleman got a new phone with the same number, and started receiving messages that officers had seen the nude images and been making jokes about them. On Jan. 3, 2023, she was “constructively discharged,” meaning she quit because working conditions were so bad that no reasonable person would stay.
“Detectives ‘routinely’ review the information extracted from a cell phone and attempt to tie any ‘damning evidence’ taken outside the warrant’s date range”
Fray coleman lawsuit
The episode raises questions about the procurement and storage policies of the WPD around sensitive data. Coleman has previously alleged that the department flaunts warrant limitations by examining more data than its legally allowed and then seeks a subsequent warrant for data it already knows exists – a practice that would violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
“Ms. Coleman alleges this practice allows the warrant’s author to conduct a ‘fishing expedition’ to review data outside the warrant’s scope. Ms. Coleman alleges detectives ‘routinely’ review the information extracted from a cell phone and attempt to tie any ‘damning evidence’ taken outside the warrant’s date range to data found within the warrant’s range,” her original federal lawsuit argued.
Coleman, who was the highest ranking Black woman in the department at the time of her departure, has also alleged that the WPD suffers from a discriminatory environment against Black officers.
WPD has yet to file its response to the Superior Court lawsuit. The department told Spotlight Delaware that it is unable to comment on pending litigation.
Does WPD have policies protecting confiscated data?
The WPD doesn’t have a specific policy on how personal cellular data should be handled within the department, but in any case, the destruction of evidence must be approved by the Delaware Department of Justice.
The WPD and DOJ did not respond to requests for comment on how data is managed and protected in police systems.
James Nolan, a professor of sociology at West Virginia University, is a former lieutenant in the WPD. After a 13-year career with the department, he made a shift to the FBI and then teaching. His areas of research include police reform, hate crimes, crime measurement and institutional reform in higher education.
He said departments around the country often follow guidelines set by the International Association of Chiefs of Police or the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.
As departments learn to manage emerging technologies and try to keep up with policy, Nolan said departments often have planning or research units to follow along with trends. Much of how the United States runs its police departments is different from much of the world, he said.
Unlike other countries with national police forces, the U.S. built its institution with “local control” in mind, Nolan said.
The WPD hasn’t updated its policy on the handling of records since 1993, but officers are prohibited from removing or reviewing police documents outside of the department. Violating this policy would only carry at most five days of suspension on an officer’s first offense.
“Information contained in the police record, computer, and notebook are classified as confidential,” according to a WPD policy on the security of information.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals filed a ruling in September 2023 that the government can’t indefinitely hold data without proper reasoning, even if a warrant to obtain it was lawful. The case surrounded “MyPillow” CEO Mike Lindell and an investigation into the alleged publication of forensic images of election software used in the 2020 election.
Lindell requested his phone and data be returned to him since it contained his business and possible attorney-client conversations. The government refused to return them on the basis of “an ongoing evidentiary need,” according to the decision.
“The government’s continued retention of the phone and all its data raises constitutional issues distinct from the lawfulness of the search warrant or its execution,” the decision said.
Have a question about or feedback on this story? Reach Nick Stonesifer at nstonesifer@spotlightdelaware.org.
The post Wilmington PD harassment lawsuit raises questions about data management appeared first on Spotlight Delaware.