By Megan Alley
Sun Reporter
An internal investigation review of the village of Bethel Police Department’s Sergeant Mark Planck, stemming from an incident that took place during a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Bethel in June 2020, was recently obtained by The Sun.
Planck is currently in command of the Bethel Police Department, and Bethel Police Chief Steve Teague is on leave. The village announced the change on Jan. 9.
In July 2020, the village of Bethel engaged the services of Hamilton Township Police Department Chief Scott Hughes to prepare an internal investigation review of Planck’s actions during an incident that happened amid the demonstration.
In one widely circulated video, Planck is seen standing by as a counter-demonstrator punches a BLM demonstrator in the back of the head.
The village emailed the nine-page report to The Sun on Jan. 11.
Request for details about how much the review and report cost the village were not answered by time of publication.
In the introduction to his report, Hughes writes: “On July 6, 2020, I was requested by Strauss & Troy, to conduct a professional review of an Internal Affairs investigation and subsequent report prepared by the Village of Bethel Police Chief Steve Teague regarding the actions of Sgt. Mark Planck on June 13, 2020 in Bethel, Ohio. The incident involved a Black Lives Matter protester who was allegedly assaulted by a counter protestor. The victim alleges that the assault occurred in front of Sgt. Planck who failed to take enforcement action.”
Hughes said that the village solicitor provided him with several pieces of relevant evidence, including the Village of Bethel Police Department Internal Investigation report, a Tik Tok video, and an audio recording of the internal investigation interview with the victim of the assault.
Hughes added that his opinions in the report are based on information provided to him regarding this incident and reflect his training and experience and generally accepted best practices, and do not presume or imply a statement of any legal opinion.
He said that based on the Village of Bethel Police Department Internal Investigation report, Teague investigated two counts against Planck:
Count 1: “Complainant claims that Sgt. Planck witnessed an assault that took place in front of him and witnessed by him. Complainant further stated Sgt. Planck failed to take any action as a result of the assault.”
Count 2: “Complainant claims that during the black [sic] Lives Matter rally and counter protest, Sgt. Planck conducted himself in an unprofessional manor [sic] by telling a protester to go back to Cincinnati to protest.”
Hughes said that the most compelling piece of evidence in both counts made against Planck is a Tik Tok video that captured part of the altercation between the victim and the suspect.
“In viewing the video, Sgt. Planck is observed standing in a crowd of individuals (wearing the white police hat). The victim (yellow circle) is observed standing to Sgt. Planck’s right (3 o’clock position). The video clearly shows the suspect use his right hand and strike the victim on the right side of his face. From the time the suspect’s fist starts to become visible at right shoulder, to strike, not even 1/10 of a second passes,” he wrote.
Hughes explained that in analyzing whether or not Planck observed the assault, he paid attention to the behavior of two bystanders seen standing by Planck.
“Following the punch, neither of the bystanders react; this would indicate that neither Sgt. Planck, nor the two bystanders, saw the suspect strike the victim. When pausing the video, it is obvious that Sgt. Planck is looking away from the victim when the assault occurs – along with both bystanders,” he wrote.
Regarding Count 2, Hughes notes that following the assault, a counter-protester can be heard shouting: “here’s your hat [expletive]” and then throws a hat at the victim.
Hughes then goes on and reports that, “The same counter-protester who screams, “Here’s your hat [expletive]” is without a doubt, one of the individuals yelling for the protester to go to Cincinnati and protest.
In his executive summary, Hughs writes, “From the moment that the suspect appears in the video, until the suspect walks into the crowd, is less than two seconds. In that short time, the suspect delivers a punch and walks away. The situation was extremely volatile, the group was disorderly, several counter protesters were armed with rifles, and the police officers were significantly outnumbered.”
He goes on to state that, “While it could be assumed that Sgt. Planck observed the suspect strike the victim, the angle of the video is not necessarily the same perspective of the officer.”
“The video does provide a perspective into the overall scene. This view shows Sgt. Planck initially failing to move a counter-protester away from an unruly group. When the victim was assaulted, Sgt. Planck’s upper body shifted to his left, presumably so Sgt. Planck could get a better view behind the victim, however Sgt. Planck did not take any action. When the hat is thrown at the victim, Sgt. Planck observes the offender and fails to intervene; nor does he move the counter-protester to a safer area. When the victim informs Sgt. Planck he was assaulted, several members of the crowd begin getting closer to the victim. When the victim asks, ‘Where am I allowed to protest?’ the crowd becomes more enraged while Sgt. Planck remains in the same position. Based on the information provided, my finding is Not Sustained.”
Hughes earlier in his report gives the following definition – “Not sustained – When the investigation discloses that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the complaint or fully exonerate the member.”