In conformity with the instructions issued by the Honorable Diamond Flynn, Mayor of the City of Medford, Oregon, at the Council Meeting upon August 26, 1953, the writer conducted an investigation of charges of irregularities in the Police Department. The charges consisted of brutality, irregularities in the handling of bail money, conduct not becoming an officer and others. Following the instructions issued at that time, the writer conducted the investigation into the charges which were supplied to him by interested witnesses, local press and by the personnel of the Police Department.
    The investigation, while limited in scope, covered the reported items and, in addition thereto, covered the certain phases of Police Department activities which came to the attention of the investigator. Investigation of the Hurley incident was held at a minimum in view of the fact that this matter had been thoroughly investigated by the grand jury prior to the initiation of this investigation.
    During the period of the investigation, a considerable amount of time was spent by the writer in the discussion of police administration with the present Sergeants, Lieutenant and Chief of Police of the Police Department. A number of observations of the writer were given to the officers at that time.
    In making the report to the Council, the report will be broken down into the several classifications of charges against the Police Department, and all these cases which would fall under a single classification will be grouped therein.
    In conformance with the instructions, there will be no names used. The informants will be identified by numerals and the officers will be designated by letters. The key to such designation will be supplied to any designated authority by the author.
    I wish to express my appreciation to the Mayor, the members of the City Council, personnel of the City Hall and local press and the citizens of Medford in aiding me to perform this task. I hope and believe that this report will be of service to both the Police Department and general public of the City of Medford.
    Reported by Source 1. Individual arrested by regular officer of Medford Police Department approximately 2:00 a.m., June 30, 1953, in front of or in the Rogue Restaurant, Medford, Oregon, by Officer (a). Subject stated the following concerning the circumstances of his arrest, he himself suffering from epilepsy.
    On the night of June 30, 1953, Monday, I had a date with a very well-known woman that comes out here to Camp to play bridge, of Medford. We went for a drive and stopped at the Ashland Elks Club for dinner at 8:30 p.m., I have belonged for 14 years. We then proceeded south at a leisurely rate of speed and stopped at Henley's California and visited with friends of the lady. It was a very enjoyable evening and we danced, talked and I sipped a few wines, sauterne. We then proceeded back to Medford and the lady let me off a half block from the Jackson Hotel in front of an all-night restaurant. I was going to get something to eat and then get a room at the hotel. At the last moment I changed my mind or had just about changed my mind thinking, why should I stay in town and spend the extra money when I would just be leaving for Camp the first thing in the morning anyway. Just then it struck me that I would have to hire a cab to make the trip so I leaned against the fender of a parked car to think it over. Just then a young policeman walked up and asked me what I was doing. I said leaning against this car thinking something over. He said is that your car. Why no, I said. The policeman went on to tell me that I couldn't stand where I was and I said I know of no law against it. There isn't but you'll have to get the owner's permission. Wait a minute I said, what are you driving at anyway, I'm a citizen. He interrupted me and said where are you from? Camp White, I said and continued with, look, let's not be playing games, either I am arrested or not, which is it? Just a minute I'll be right back. He had called a squad car or the station and then said you're under arrest. I said all right, and in a few minutes the car pulled up. The driver got out and said, come on, taking me by the arm. I needed no assistance and assured him of that fact. That had the effect of adding fuel to a smoldering fire. Then for no reason at all the driver said something like this. You guys from out there think you can do what you want when you come to town, well, we'll see about that etc., etc. When we got to the station I was booked etc., and the guy in charge of the three cops said empty your pockets. I said now wait a minute, what's the charge and just what is this. You'll see, he said. Well, I want to know what's going on before I empty my pockets. Look you s-- of a b--, do what I say or you'll wish you had. Up until this point I was going along with them as docile as one could expect but when the guy in charge said that I came back with, look, I take that from no man, and my calm composure up until then, left me. Well, you'll take it from me and like it, finishing off with calling me a homosexual. I then lost my temper and started to get out of the chair I was sitting in. I didn't get far as the guy in charge set me back in the chair with a split lip. They still are not healed. After being called a b-- and a few more choice names, I rested my forehead in the heel of my hand and emptied my pockets on their continued insistence. I would not sign the proper paper for my valuables, $14.00 and some silver. The fellow in charge then said come on. I got as far as the door leading to the drunk tank and because of the excitement one of my attacks began to take hold of me and I doubled over. It was while I was in that position that the guy in charge gave me an uppercut that sent me sprawling to the floor and so to the tank. All through the procedure I wondered just what does a guy do in something like this and then I thought back to an incident where a guy got worked over by the Police Department for no cooperation. The next morning at police court I was asked how I pleaded. I said not guilty and the judge said $50.00 bail, hearing tomorrow morning. When Chief McCredie handed over my valuables I asked him what had happened to the $14.00. It is not on your slip he said and then continued with, you're the guy who was so belligerent last night, we don't want you guys around here at all, understand? Yes, I understood. Clyde Fichtner, a friend, released me to camp. I have heard nothing since. I affirm and attest this statement, every word of it.
    Officer (a) upon being interviewed stated as follows:
    Officer (a) is noted as being the arresting officer of Source, 1, a Camp Whiter, who was arrested on June 30, 1953. Officer (a) advised that he had observed Source 1 getting out of a Lincoln automobile and proceeding up the street to the Rogue Restaurant and then to the Jackson Hotel and then returned to the Rogue Restaurant where Source 1 leaned up against the automobile. He stated that Source 1 was talking to himself in quite a loud voice while walking up the street and leaning against the car.
    Officer (a) approached him and asked what he was doing and then Source 1 advised that it was none of his business. Officer (a) asked him how much he had had to drink wherein Source 1 asked if Officer (a) was running a Gestapo. Officer (a) then arrested him on a charge of being drunk in public. Officer (a) told him he was going to arrest him for being drunk in public and Source 1 walked away. Officer (a) went into the Rogue Restaurant and picked him up at that time. He called for a car and another officer came and took Source 1 to the station. Source 1 was belligerent and kept causing them all a lot of trouble. At the time they arrived at the station he proceeded to book him after getting the usual information for the arrest report. Officer (a) advised that the only individuals who were present at the time that Source 1 was booked were two other officers. He stated that he did not recall any officer cussing Source 1 out but stated that Source 1 was very profane at the time that he and the other officer were booking him. He stated that he did recall that Source 1 stated--that same thing went for the "S.O.B." in the other room, meaning another officer. He stated that he did not recall one of the other officers shoving or striking Source 1 at any time nor does he recall Source 1 having an attack prior to the time he was booked. He stated that Source 1 was placed in the cell and given a mattress. Upon checking the arrest card of Source 1, Officer (a) advised that he did conduct a search of Source 1 and all of Source 1's personal property was listed on the property receipt. He stated that Source 1 had had no money at the time he searched him. Officer (a) was asked as to whether or not Source 1 appeared to be suffering from illness. Officer (a) reported that, so far as he could tell, Source 1 was drunk. He stated he could smell some alcohol and noted that Source 1 staggered when he walked and he walked very unsteadily.
    Officer (b), a Sergeant in charge of that particular shift, stated as follows:
    Q. Do you remember a fellow by the name of Source 1. He was brought in by another officer--three of you, and two other officers.
    A. I do remember him. When he came in he gave the officer a rough go on the street and he was nasty. He kept getting out of the chair and I pushed him back, I didn't hit him. How he got the cut on his lip I don't know. He was just mean and nasty. Pushed him back in the chair with my open hand. I have never hit him. He was drunk enough to be mean.
    Q. How do you determine drunks?
    A. His looks, speech, walk.
    Q. How do you determine whether a man is drunk or an epileptic?
    A. As far as I know this man was not an epileptic. He was told he was arrested for disorderly conduct. He had been drinking a lot when he was in the station. The investigator then said he couldn't have been according to the statement that was on hand--verified by the Companion of Source 1, but pointed out to Officer (b) that he was an epileptic.
Case "B"
    Reported by Source 2 who stated that he was arrested while admittedly being drunk at the Top Notch Cafe approximately two years ago. Records show he was arrested May 1, 1951 at 2:30 a.m., at the Top Notch Cafe by Officer (c). Complainant stated at one particular time when he was arrested in Medford by Officer (c), Officer (c) called a car that picked us up with two officers in front. We got in the back. On the way to the Police Station he got me on the floor boards and just completely worked on me and again after we left the desk on the way to the cell block I was tripped and hit when I was trying to get off the floor. Source 2 stated that Officer (c) had held his foot on him while en route to the jail and hit me with his fists in the face and neck. Source 2's shirt was practically torn off. Source's condition was noted by his employer who called for him at 10:00 a.m. the next morning. Source 2's employer stated that when subject came from the cell block he appeared to be really worked over and his shirt was torn practically off and he had caked blood all over him and somebody had really worked him over and I asked him what happened to him. He said, Well, they had picked him up at the Top Notch that night and he was put in the back seat of the police car and two policemen got in there and started working him over and then when they got him down to the police station he said he had been tripped and when he got up he was knocked down again. He told me the police had used their fists with leather gloves on. They didn't hit him with any object of any kind. A check made of the employees of the Top Notch restaurant disclosed the following:
    Source No. 3 stated as follows:
    That she had formerly been employed at the Top Notch restaurant and worked the shift from 9:30 p.m. until 5:30 in the morning; that she recalled Source 2 as being drunk in the cafe on or about May 1, 1951. She stated that she had never had any trouble with Source 2 and does not believe that she called the patrol car that night. She stated that she believed the officer who picked up Source 2 off the street and took Source 2 to the back of the cafe from where he called a patrol car. Shortly after, she saw the officer and Source 2 leave the restaurant. She advised that at this time Source 2 did not appear to be skinned or bruised and that she was sure that his shirt or clothing had not been torn. She advised that she was sure of this because she had known Source 2 for some time and that he had never caused any bad trouble at the Top Notch cafe. She advised that she had not seen Source 2 for some time after he had been picked up.
    Officer (c) upon interview stated as follows: That he recalled arresting the subject at the Top Notch but did not strike him at any time.
Case "C"
    Reported by Source 3, who stated officer twisted his arm when he was arrested and taken to jail on September 25, 1952. He states that he advised the officer that his arm was injured. When Source 3 objected to the officer handling him that way with an arm that was injured and being willing to go along with him he just called me foul names and applied a little more pressure. The next morning I was accosted by Chief McCredie who took what I had to say about the arm twisting and he described the Camp White men as being "drunken bums" and "parasites."
    Officer (d) on interview advised as follows:
    Officer (d) stated that he had arrested Source 3 in the past and said frankly that when Source 3 goes to drinking he "goes off his nut"; that he had arrested him on September 25, 1952 at 1:00 p.m. down on Front Street and at that time Source 3, according to the record, had been acting very belligerent and refused to go when asked to do so. He stated that he grasped Source 3's arm and twisted it in order to get him to the station--a block or two away. Source 3 wanted him to stop and asked him to do so. He stated that he did let go of his arm and as soon as he stopped Source 3 started cussing and swinging again and trying to kick; that then he grabbed his arm again and took him on in to the station; that after he booked him Source 3 started out the door to the interrogation room; that when Officer (d) grabbed him to stop him from leaving the booking office Source 3 started to kick and wrestled with Officer (d); that at that time Officer (d) did slap him and cuffed him a couple of times in order to quiet him down. Source 3 was not available for interview. Officer (d) had no knowledge of the other instance related by Source 3.
    The Chief of Police did not recall this incident. Source 3 has a long arrest record for drunkenness, having been arrested five times in the 60 days surrounding this arrest.
Case "D"
    Source 4 stated that around October or November, he was booked there about 11 or 12:00 o'clock and asked the officer, it must have been about 12:30 or 1 o'clock, for a blanket. The first thing I knew he hauls off and kicks me in the leg and then in the ribs and he has a pair of driving gloves and he sideswipes my face. My face was black and blue for about a week. This incident occurred inside the bullpen and a check of the arrest records shows that this subject was arrested upon September 8, 1952 at 9:45 p.m. on a charge of drunkenness. Informant or Source 5 was arrested at 11:13 p.m. upon September 5, 1952 on a charge of drunkenness. He stated that he had observed an officer enter the bullpen and strike Source 4 in this case while he was sitting down, stating that Source 4 had been quiet. Source 4 was kicked on the shins and slapped. Source 5 identified the photograph of Officer (e). Source 6 stated he was in the jail at the time that Source 4 was in jail and observed Officer (e) strike the subject. Source 6 stated that Source 4 was in jail for being drunk and he asked Officer (e) for a mattress and Officer (e) said to shut his mouth and he would get it when he could and then slugged Source 4 and kicked him. He advised that Source 4 was not causing a disturbance. He stated that Officer (e) struck Source 4 four or five times and kicked him. Officer (e) on interview stated as follows:
    "That he did not recall the individual although he was on duty at that time, and stated that he did not strike this individual at any time." Officer (e) was questioned as to his policy with regard to handling of prisoners and he stated as follows: "I would just like to say that I have never hit or beaten a prisoner without good provocation."
Case "E"
    Source 7 advised that he had observed Officer (f) issue orders for subject to be run out of town and an officer to take the subject south of town and drop him on the road. Source 7 advised that upon this particular night, it was very cold and that there was snow on the ground. Officer (f) advised that the policy of running drunks out of town had been followed in the prior years by the Medford Police Department and while he recalled the subject in this particular case, he did not recall this specific incident. He stated that the Police Department hauled the subjects either north or south of the town and that this would be done even though the weather was rough.
Case "F"
    Source 8 stated that at time of his interrogation upon September 4, 1952 by Officer (h) that he had given a statement under duress for the reason that Officer (h) had threatened to knock his head against the wall and that at this time Officer (g) was present. Source 8 stated in detail as follows: "I went to the clinic that day to have my back worked on and x-ray taken. I went home and about 4:00 an officer came out and said Officer (h) wanted to talk to me. I got down to the station and they started asking me a lot of silly questions and then they started the rough stuff. I was in the interrogation room from about 4:00 till 12:00. They started hollering and screaming at me and jumping at me. Officer (h) was in there alone at the time. Another guy came in, I think it was Officer (j), in civilian clothes and said he'd wrap my head around the radiator if I didn't come clean. I asked for my mother to come down and she was there during the period of questioning. I was so scared and afraid they were going to beat me with a blackjack I gave that statement. In court I denied the confession.
    Officer (h) advised upon being questioned with regard to this incident as follows: "He called me a g-- d--- liar and I told him that he better not call me that again or I would bash his head through the wall. Not a threat but just a figure of speech. I never touched him."
    Source 9 stated that he had been informed by Source 8 that he had been worked over by some of the officers of the Police Department but that he did not know who Source 8 meant.
Case "G"
    Source 10 stated that he had observed Officer (j) with burglary suspects and that while they were interviewing Source 11 in this case, Source 10 heard noises and walked to the back--Source 11 was sitting back there holding his head and his face was all red. It was his belief that the officer had struck the subject.
    Source 11 advised that he had been interrogated upon September 4, 1952, and that he had been in the jail from Friday until Monday; that during the time he had been given very little or nothing to eat and that Officers (k), (1), and (m) had taken turns interviewing him and working him over; that they had struck him numerous times with their fists, and that Officer (m) had kicked him upon an injured ankle. He stated that they would not permit him to go to the lavatory, and that as a result, he had urinated over himself a couple of times. He had given the officers a statement which he later refuted. Officers denied ever striking this individual.
Case "H"
    Source 12 in this case had been arrested by an officer for failure to stop at the scene of an accident. Some time subsequent to the accident, he was taken to the Police Department to make out an accident report. He stated on arrival at the Police Department, Officer (a) upon hearing a noise in the office came out using profane language and asking what he was doing at the Police Department. He stated that during the conversation Officer (n) had called the subject a "wife stealer" and that he became angry at the officer at this time; that he and another officer on duty grabbed him by the arms and started to throw him in jail. At about that time the Chief of Police, McCredie, came in and asked what was going on. After the matter was explained, the Chief ordered the officer to release the subject. On a later trial of the facts of this case, the case was dismissed. Officer (n) upon interview stated that subject was profane and loud and the officer came out of the office to find out what the trouble was; that the subject became profane and called the officer a number of profane names. The officer admittedly stated he called the subject a "wife stealer" and stated that was in fact the truth because it was or that the subject was and is. He stated that during the argument the subject had been shaking his fist at the officer's face and struck the officer in the nose. That he and the other officer grabbed him to place him in jail and about that time the Chief of Police came in. Officer (n) denied roughing up the subject in any manner. The chief on interview recalled the incident and stated that both of the men had lost their temper and that he had ordered the subject released. He did not observe that the subject had been harmed in any way and took no further action, believing that none was necessary.
Case "I"
    Source 13 in this case reported that, while he was associated with the Medford Police Department, he had observed the following: "A drunk person had been brought in and he was so far under the influence of alcohol that he had passed out. He had been placed in the hallway to be checked in and while lying on the floor, Officer (o) stepped out to see what was going on. Beside the door lay a 3- or 4-foot stick about 1⅛ inches in diameter and Officer (o) picked up that stick and using it as one would use a baseball bat proceeded to strike this man across the sole of his shoe as hard as the officer could swing. He struck the drunk 4 or 5 times. The drunk was so far under that it did not revive him but you could see him grimace from the pain. He was taken in and put on a cot in jail. Source 13 also stated that he had seen Officer (o) rough up the prisoners when taking them back to the bullpen if the prisoner wished to fight, as Officer (o) would never turn down an opportunity to take them on.
Case "J"
    Source 14 in this case stated that he had witnessed Officer (p) upon several occasions strike prisoners under arrest. In the opinion of Source 14 none of these occasions were necessary. One was a man being held for indecent exposure and officer simply slugged him. The man was not fighting with the officer or using any force or picking a fight. On several occasions I have known the officer as being unnecessarily rough to people under arrest and it is my belief that he has slugged a number of persons without any reason to do it. Source 14 was not able to identify the time, places or individuals referred to above.
Case "K"
    Source 15 in this case stated that he had observed Officer (q) strike a person in the Cal.-Ore. Fast Freight office. At this time, he could not identify the name of the subject and upon interrogation the officer denied ever striking any individual.
    Another informant, Source 16, stated that he observed this Officer (q) strike a man when the informant was getting ready to let the man out of jail. The individual was cutting the informant out and Officer (q) came in and struck him. In the opinion of the informant, it was very uncalled for on the part of this officer. According to the informant, this information was reported to a Lieutenant but that there has been no follow-up on this particular case at all. The Lieutenant does not recall receiving any information whatsoever about this particular case or any other case.
Case "L"
    Officer (r) stated he lost his temper when a drunk that he brought in called him a "s.o.b." and he struck the subject. Officer was reprimanded by the Sergeants who saw the incident.
Case "M"
    Officer (s) is no longer with the force and struck a drunk unnecessarily in presence of Officer (t) on the last night of duty. It was not reported.
Case "N"
    Two women, Sources 17 and 18, advised that about two or three years ago while driving through the city, they observed a man lying on the front porch of an apparently abandoned house about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. One of the women, being a nurse, went over to check him and observed the fact that he was drunk. She called the Police Department and within a short period of time two men in a squad car appeared. They picked the individual up and dragged him by the armpits to the car, each officer holding him up from the opposite sides. As they went to put him in the car, one of the officers struck the drunk 2 or 3 times with a sap and then the two officers threw the drunk in the back of the car like a bag of flour. Sources 17 and 18 stated they neither saw the drunk put up any fight or any resistance whatsoever, in fact, stated they did not believe that he was capable of putting up any resistance. Sources 17 and 18 could not identify officers or the individual involved or the date of the occurrence.
    All men were interviewed and asked the question as to whether they had struck some person or if they had seen some other person strike a person.
    Where they stated they had struck some person they were given the opportunity to explain. They explained all cases other than those reported as being cases where in their judgment they had to strike or slap some person in order to control, subdue or arrest the individual.
    Other than where the cases have been noted the cases have not been reported to the executive officers.
Case "A"
    Source 19 advised that he had been arrested on or about March 8, 1951. This was verified from police records. At the time of his arrest upon a charge of drunkenness, he did not have any money and arranged to have money sent to him by his son from Fresno. He stated that he did not see the money but understood that it had been received by Western Union. He was fined $10.00 and stated that he had received approximately $15 or $20 out of the balance of $50.00. Officer (aa) advised that he recalled receiving this check which was sent to him personally and that he had paid the $10 bail and held the balance in a separate envelope for the subject; that he had given him money from the envelope in small amounts and had purchased meal tickets for the subject. He denied appropriating any money for his own use.
Case "B"
    Source 20 advised that he was arrested on or about August 1, 1953, in the Owl Cafe on a charge of drunkenness. He stated that he believed he had at least $10 or $12 and a Ronson lighter on his person at the time they arrested him. He stated that he had two or more dollars in change and had changed a $10.00 bill in order to buy two drinks. He advised that when he went to obtain his money upon being released, all the money the Police Department had given him credit for was 10 cents. He stated he was also missing a Ronson cigarette lighter. Source had no idea as to the identity of the officers involved. A check of the arrest records showed that Officers (bb) and (cc) were the officers who had arrested him. Both officers upon interview denied any knowledge of Source 20 having any money more than that shown upon the statement.
Case "C"
    Source 21 advised that he was arrested upon the 10th of June, 1953. A check of the arrest records shows that he was arrested June 5, 1953 on a charge of drunkenness. Source 21 stated that he had had several beers and went to a used car lot where he saw a person that he used to know who was a resident of Phoenix, Oregon. He asked if he had any money to spend and stated that he would get a fifth of Four Roses whiskey. Source 21 gave him the money and he purchased the whiskey. After the second drink out of this bottle, the subject passed out. When he came to he was in jail with no money--no glasses. He believed that he had $40.00 in his pocket the last he had remembered. He also lost his glasses. A check of the search record disclosed only 20 cents and no glasses. Officer (dd) stated that he had picked subject up in a used car lot operated by Mr. Barnes; that when he went to Barnes' lot he found subject drunk in an automobile and that subject and another individual whose name was not known to Barnes had been talking to Barnes about purchasing a car. He stated that subject was completely out and that he loaded him into the car and took him to the station. He stated he did not make a search of subject prior to the time that he booked him, and that he did not have any independent recollection of any property other than that shown on the property receipt; that he had not taken any of the subject's money. He advised that the subject had not caused him any trouble and he had not struck him or abused him in any manner.
    In the inquiry as to the loss of money of prisoners, it was disclosed that the officers reported that one individual who had been convicted had formerly removed money from the cash register. This fact was discussed with the Chief and Lieutenant who stated that they had known of this and had made efforts to apprehend the subject and that they were successful.
Among the Patrolmen:
    In general the Patrolmen advised that they did not believe that there was dissension among the officers or men.
    The Patrolmen were dissatisfied with the following conditions which they believed could be improved upon:
    1. Some type of security in their positions. It was suggested that either the positions be under Civil Service or at least the officers have an opportunity of appearing before a review board if they were dismissed or suspended.
    2. Definite outline of personnel program and promotion policies. They were very critical of the fact that two men were in the department who had been there for a number of years and were still only receiving $312.00 per month.
    3. Desired some type of general conference with the officers.
    4. Some type of merit examination for the patrolmen.
    5. Definite policies of work laid down with uniformity to be applied on all shifts.
    6. Need for more adequate training program with in-service training continued.
Among the Officers:
    There is definitely dissension among the three Sergeants. All three presently employed were frank in their statements as to their criticism of:
    1. Attitude of the three Sergeants toward each other.
    2. Assignment of particular duties to Sergeant.
    3. Lack of supervision over the Sergeants' activities.
    4. Non-rotation of the Sergeants, building up a group support behind each sergeant of his own men.
    5. Alleged criticizing of the department to lay personnel outside of official circles.
    6. Alleged ambitions on the part of officers for higher positions within the department.
    7. Promotion of men to sergeant's rank without regard to seniority or ability.
    8. Alleged failure of sergeant to discharge his responsibilities with the result that other officers had to perform their duties.
    9. Disregard of channels by officer personnel in the use of patrolmen for special assignments.
    (a) Failure to answer calls when reported to the Police Department. Citizen (Source 22) called desk about a nude man being in the yard. Oversight on part of the officer on duty.
    (b) Report that Officer (ee) was surveiling citizen (Source 23) and reporting facts to another citizen (Source 24) in a divorce case. Officer (ee) denied that he had performed any but official acts and duties although he had joined one of the parties in coffee at breakfast.
    (c) Failure to call in physician for person brought to jail on April 15, 1948. Source 25 picked up after falling into the front of a street sweeper at about 6:30 a.m. He was brought to the police station and placed in the cell. No medical officer was called and the person died about 1:30 p.m. No action was taken in this case although autopsy showed possible concussion. (Officer is ff), complainant (Source 26).
    (d) Source 27 advised that a coupe belonging to the telephone company had been parked in front of his shop and he noticed that the meter indication was "violation." He observed Officer (gg) walk by the meter and put a penny in the meter and issue no citation. Officer (hh) who was on a motorcycle was contacted and he advised he was the officer that placed the penny in the meter. He stated that an employee of the telephone company, whom he knew, was going to get change to place in the meter and Officer (hh) gave him change. The person then asked Officer (hh) if he would place the penny in the meter as he was returning only for that purpose. Officer (hh) placed the coin in the meter.
    (e) Persons arrested complained about the department not allowing them to use the telephone. Department advised that the policy was to permit one call if person was not too drunk to make the call.
    (f) Source 28 complained of failure of city council, Mayor or police department to stop teenagers racing and making noise at a local drive-in. Police department had made numerous calls and recognized problem.
    In addition to the sources indicated conferences were held with the local law enforcement and prosecuting officials to determine whether or not they had any specific information concerning the alleged misfeasance upon the part of members of the Medford Police Department. As stated in the Foreword a number of administrative suggestions were made to the lieutenant and the chief of police during the course of this investigation. These suggestions are not being listed at this time within this report in view of the fact that they have already been furnished to the administrative officers. They were the result of the observation of the author during the period of his investigation.
    All of the information set forth in this report is contained in detailed written reports obtained during the period of the investigation which reports have been surrendered to the designated official.
    The writer again wishes to express his appreciation for the cooperation received during this investigation.
Medford Mail Tribune, October 11, 1953, page 2

Last revised April 26, 2026