WFPD Chief, suspended officer testify in arbitration
Ralph Ryan Piper, 50, of Wichita Falls, was placed on indefinite suspension in September 2023 by the Wichita Falls Police Department for violating the department's code of conduct.
Piper's suspension stems from May 2023, when he allegedly accessed case files after being ordered not to be involved with any ongoing investigations, then allegedly lied about accessing those case files when asked by his superiors. Piper has denied ever accessing the case since the allegations were brought against him.
PREVIOUS STORY: Arbitration underway for suspended WFPD officer
Arbitration began on Monday, June 2, 2025, and continued on Tuesday, June 3, beginning at around 9 a.m., in the conference room of the City Manager's office, located on the third floor of the First Wichita Building, known as Big Blue, in downtown Wichita Falls.
Diego Peña, an independent third-party mediator based in Arlington, oversaw the hearing. Julia Vasquez, Deputy City Attorney for Wichita Falls, is representing the city and the WFPD during arbitration. Lance Wyatt is representing Piper.
Vasquez, on behalf of the City of Wichita Falls, called WFPD Lt. Sam Coltrain as a witness. Lt. Coltrain testified that he conducted an in-depth audit of Piper's activity on WFPD's Record Management System.
According to Lt. Coltrain's audit, which was admitted into evidence, between 8:55 a.m. and 9:03 a.m. on May 5, 2023, Piper was searching for cases he was assigned to work on disposing of old evidence for, dated back to 2005.
Lt. Coltrain testified that at 9:04 a.m. on May 5, 2023, a search from Piper's RMS account for 'Piper' was logged. Then, in rapid succession, Piper's RMS account also searched for 'Michael Piper,' 'Ralph Michael Piper', and the address for Piper's family roofing business, located on Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
Lt. Coltrain testified that he's not aware of any time the RMS audit log has ever created random entries on its own, and that the only way another officer could have searched for a case using Piper's account was if Piper allowed that person to sit at his computer. He testified that Piper denied ever searching for the case.
During cross-examination, Wyatt asked Lt. Coltrain if another employee could have accessed Piper's computer if he had walked away from his desk to take a phone call and left his machine open and logged in. Lt. Coltrain testified that it would be possible.
Lt. Coltrain also testified that after the searches were done on Piper's computer for keywords related to his father's case, there was no more RMS activity until 9:44 a.m., seeming to support the defense theory that Piper was away from his desk for an extended amount of time.
READ MORE: WFPD officer acquitted of theft charges
On redirect examination from Vasquez, Lt. Coltrain testified that the only explanation he can see regarding the case files searched for on Piper's RMS account is that Piper himself searched for the case files.
'I don't know why any other officer would jeopardize their career to set someone up,' Lt. Coltrain testified.
The next witness called on behalf of the City of Wichita Falls was the Chief of Police for the Wichita Falls Police Department, Manuel Borrego. He testified that he's served as the Chief since 2012, but has been with the department for over 40 years.
Chief Borrego testified that when Piper was reinstated, he instructed Piper not to be involved with any active investigations because he'd been added to the Brady List by the Wichita County District Attorney's Office and the city prosecutor.
Chief Borrego testified that after Piper was acquitted of his criminal charges, he had to bring him back to work, but it was difficult to find a place for him due to his Brady complications. He testified that if Piper hadn't been subject to a Brady notice, his return to the WFPD would've been handled very differently.
'I've got to bring justice to these victims, and I can't jeopardize that with the D.A. not taking a case because Piper was involved,' Chief Borrego testified. 'I told him specifically he'd never see the inside of a police vehicle and he'd never ride a police motorcycle again because he'd been Brady'ed.'
Chief Borrego testified that there were no open administrative investigations regarding Piper before his first suspension, and he wasn't aware of any other issues with Piper prior to the situation for which he's currently suspended.
Chief Borrego testified that after he was notified that Piper was accused of accessing a case involving his family business and that he'd lied to superiors about the case, he asked Lt. Joseph Puddu, who testified yesterday, to conduct an internal investigation.
According to Chief Borrego's testimony, Piper checking the RMS case file for the burglary at his family's roofing business isn't directly what led to his indefinite suspension.
'Officer Piper must've felt that based on his actions, he was going to be terminated, so he lied about it,' Chief Borrego testified. 'What got him fired wasn't just that he disobeyed a direct order, but that he lied about it.'
Chief Borrego testified that following Lt. Puddu's investigation, a probable cause hearing was held in September 2023, in which Piper didn't offer any alternative explanations as to why his credentials were used to access the case file, adding that Piper continued to deny that he ever accessed the case in the RMS.
'He had multiple opportunities to be truthful about what happened in this,' Chief Borrego testified. 'He accessed it, he refused to be truthful about it, so I made a determination that I couldn't use him anywhere else. I'd lost faith in him as far as if I could trust him.'
According to Chief Borrego's testimony, had Piper just admitted to searching for the case files, he might not have been suspended at all, and while he might have been subject to discipline, he would still have a job today.
Chief Borrego testified that if the independent arbitrator rules in Piper's favor, and he's reinstated to the WFPD, he doesn't know what he'd do with Piper, but suggested that he might transfer him to a different department entirely, if he's legally able to.
'We brought him back, we put him in a position, and he chose not to follow the rules that were imposed on him, and because of that, I don't know what else I can do with him,' Chief Borrego testified.
Following Chief Borrego's testimony, Vasquez rested the city's case.
Wyatt, on Piper's behalf, called a single witness for its case against the City of Wichita Falls: Ralph Ryan Piper himself.
Piper testified that he began working with the WFPD in 2002 and continued to do so until 2016, when he was indefinitely suspended due to criminal charges that were pending against him.
Piper testified that when he was reinstated following his acquittal in 2023, he was informed that the Wichita County District Attorney's Office would drop any case in which Piper had to be certified as a witness due to his Brady notice, so he began disposing of unnecessary evidence on old cases, including old photos and videos on closed cases.
Piper testified that on the day in question, May 5, 2023, he received a phone call at 9:02 a.m., then left his desk to handle it, because it involved his family business, and that he was away from his desk for several minutes.
Piper maintained that he never accessed the case involving the burglary of his father's business, and that he tried to show Lt. Puddu his phone records during the internal investigation, but that Lt. Puddu seemed uninterested in what evidence Piper might have.
'I have not been untruthful at any point,' Piper testified.
According to Piper's testimony, he believed that because of the Wichita County District Attorney, it was clear that other local officials felt that he was an issue and that they didn't want him back with the police department, so he figured he was already gone.
Piper then testified that he believed that Sgt. Spragins, who testified on Monday, June 2, and conducted the initial audit into Piper's RMS activity, had something to do with the case files being accessed from his computer.
'It sounds horrible and it sounds ridiculous, but I have no better explanation,' Piper testified. 'In my heart of hearts, do I know that Spragins had something to do with this? I do.'
Piper then testified that he believed Sgt. Spragins despised him and that he had a close relationship with the Wichita County District Attorney. He referred to the District Attorney as the 'king of the castle,' adding that he knew that he wanted Piper gone.
'I exercised my Fifth Amendment Right and I got put on a Brady List because the D.A. didn't get his way,' Piper testified.
Piper then became visibly emotional, with tears in his eyes and his voice breaking as he told Wyatt, 'All I want to do is be a cop.'
After the defense rested its case and Sgt. Spragins and Chief Borrego were called as rebuttal witnesses for the City of Wichita Falls, the arbitration hearing concluded at around 6:45 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2025.
After an off-the-record discussion between both attorneys regarding the post-briefing schedule, Peña went back on the record, notifying both parties that the record of the arbitration hearing will take about two weeks for the reporter to prepare.
Peña told both parties that after the record is complete, both advocates will receive the record and will be able to write a brief, which will be submitted to the arbitrator. A post-hearing brief will be submitted by both sides.
According to Peña, he will return a decision roughly 30 days after receiving both post-hearing briefs from Vasquez and Wyatt. He provided a rough estimate of late August or early September, when he expects to return his decision, but informed both parties that it may come before then.
Before all parties left the conference room, Peña told them that his decision would be based on the arbitration hearing and the evidence provided during it.
October 2016 — Piper is initially charged with theft over $20,000 but under $100,000 for allegations stemming from June 2015, and was suspended from the WFPD without pay
May 2017 — Special prosecutor appointed for Piper's case
July 2019 — Piper was indicted for theft and money laundering by a Wichita County grand jury, with the money laundering charge being dismissed at a later date
January 2023 — Piper stands trial for theft and is later acquitted after the jury found him not guilty
February 2023 — Piper is reinstated with the Wichita Falls Police Department
May 2023 — Piper was accused of accessing a case after he was ordered not to get involved with any ongoing investigations
June 2023 — WFPD begins internal investigation into Piper
September 2023 — Internal investigation concludes with a due process hearing, after which, Piper is again placed on indefinite suspension
June 2025 — Arbitration begins with a third-party mediatorCopyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a day ago
- New York Times
Should I Blow the Whistle in a Hiring Process Biased in My Favor?
I have been out of work for four months. I recently had an interview for a management-level position in my field, during which the interviewer asked a number of questions regarding my marital status, parental status and spouse's occupation. I've spent most of my career in management, and the questions are clearly inappropriate and at odds with civil rights protections. I answered the questions, because I knew the responses would be in my favor: I'm a middle-aged guy whose spouse works remotely and son is in college. I'm aware of an internal candidate for the job, a younger mother of two school-age children, and the interviewer made comments about divided responsibilities and time commitments. I kind of need the job, which raises two scenarios. In the first, I withdraw from the process. Should I notify the internal candidate of the legal violation, because I suspect (although have not confirmed) that the same questions were asked of her? In the second, I accept the position. How should I deal with the other candidate, who would be my subordinate, knowing that a likely E.E.O.C. violation tainted my hire? And additionally, should I notify the E.E.O.C. myself, regardless of whether I continue with this company? — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: If you're thinking about taking action, you would be wise to talk with an employment lawyer. But the questions you mention plainly have no place in a job interview. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidelines are explicit about this: Such questions 'may be regarded as evidence of intent to discriminate.' Let's assume, in any case, that your suspicion is justified: that the company's questions crossed a line and did so not out of clumsy curiosity but in a way that tilted the scales against the internal candidate, a younger mother with two school-age kids. Maybe, as you have reason to wonder, the interviewer pressed her on whether she would be able to handle the job with her 'divided responsibilities.' This could well count as evidence of discrimination. Yet if you got the offer, you still couldn't be sure that it was because you were judged the 'safe' candidate. You don't actually know what happened in her interview or how management was weighing the candidates. Maybe you were always going to be the preferred pick, for reasons that have nothing to do with family logistics. Suppose, though, that you're offered the job, and it's clear that the process was wrongly stacked in your favor. The moral calculus gets thornier. Is it right to accept a job you need and are qualified for if you know the offer was tainted by bias? Turning down such a position is an especially steep price for you to pay. The internal candidate keeps her job, even if she loses out on the better one she was hoping for. That's significant, but it's not quite the same as going without a paycheck. If you were positive that you were offered the job because of unlawful discrimination, I would tell you to decline and notify both the internal candidate and the E.E.O.C. what happened. The company should be held to account and made to reform its ways. 'Conference, conciliation and persuasion' — the usual E.E.O.C. route — happens only if someone calls out the wrongdoing. But right now you don't have that certainty. Given this, I don't think you need to torch your own prospects. You may take the job if it's offered. Once you're a manager, you'll treat your subordinate with the respect she deserves. You don't owe her a confession about your suspicions, if suspicions are all you have. What you do owe her, and every colleague, is to push for a culture where these questions are never asked of job applicants again. A Bonus Question A couple of years ago, I learned that my uncle sexually abused his three daughters when they were young. As someone who was also a victim of sexual abuse as a child, I find his actions deeply appalling on many levels. Whenever he calls my mother, she accepts his calls, most likely because he's her brother, but keeps them short. My father is currently in palliative care, and we're expecting his passing soon. Although I do not want my uncle to attend the funeral, my mother won't exclude him, even though he was excluded from his own wife's funeral. Is it acceptable for me to ignore him, as my sister-in-law plans to do? I'm uncertain about how my uncle will be received by his remaining siblings, and I don't want the funeral to become a day remembered for the wrong reasons. — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: Your sister-in-law has the right idea. This isn't an occasion for your appalling relative to be affirmed or accepted, but neither is it an occasion for confronting him. Don't let the day become about this man. The focus should be on the person you're mourning. Readers Respond The previous question was from a reader who is tired of a friend talking about wanting to escape the country's current political climate by moving abroad. She wrote: I have a wealthy friend (not billions, but well over $20 million) who talks almost incessantly about leaving the country because of her and her family's concerns about the current political situation. Nearly every week, it's another 'Check this one out!' — always accompanied by a link to a villa in the south of France or a seaside four-bedroom condo overlooking the coast of Spain. I'm not the sort to let money drive a relationship; I don't defer to wealthy people, and I wouldn't expect deference if the roles were reversed. So how do you navigate things when you're simply tired of hearing the same conversation on wash, rinse, repeat? I can't just say: 'Stop. Your friends with less money don't want to hear it.' That would only create anger. But 'Have you thought about how these comments affect others?' feels condescending. I'm not sure it's appropriate to tell her to stop, or how to do it. — Name Withheld In his response, the Ethicist noted: I can imagine other misgivings you might have about these upscale escape fantasies. When the political weather in your country turns threatening, there's much to be said for staying put, if you safely can, and trying to make things better. Given her resources, your friend might wrest herself from the Sotheby's International Realty website and spend more time reviewing political campaigns that could benefit from her backing. … You don't have to make it a confrontation. There are plenty of ways to signal the realities she's exasperatingly deaf to. The next time she sends you a link to a coastal villa, you might respond with a listing for a studio apartment in a Communist-era block in Bucharest — ample stair climbing, intermittent hot water and panoramic views of concrete — explaining that it better fits your budget. If she's miffed for a minute, that's the price of honesty. And a small one, surely, compared to that spread in Cap Ferrat. Reread the full question and answer here. ⬥ The recommendation that the writer shoot back an equally inappropriate rental suggestion was just petty and passive-aggressive, serving only to irk, if not confuse, the clueless wealthy friend. Honesty among friends is always best. — Bonnie ⬥ I agree that the writer's friend's 'humble brag' is obnoxious and out of touch. I've had friends and relatives like this (in a different tax bracket) over the years who have consistently mentioned vacations that they knew I could never afford as a single mom. I came to wonder if their intentions were really that innocent. To me, it did start to feel meanspirited and condescending … 'nice nasty,' as my grandmother used to call it. Hmmm. Maybe the writer should find some more sensitive friends? — Pier ⬥ Not a fan of the passive-aggressive solution the Ethicist suggests. Better to be straightforward and have an honest conversation with the clueless friend. Something on the order of: 'Deciding to leave our country rather than remaining and working to improve things is absolutely your right. Still, for those of us not inclined to seek that solution, regardless of our personal reasons, we just can't get into your weekly searches. Could you wait until you've actually found your dream home and share that with us? Sharing your joy and the start of your new adventure is something we can celebrate with you.' A polite way of saying, 'We're just not into your ongoing real estate search.' — Emme ⬥ I love what the Ethicist suggests about sending her friend the picture of a meager apartment in Bucharest. That's good! But I don't understand what's wrong with what the writer herself came up with: 'Stop. Your friends with less money don't want to hear it.' I think that is a direct and genuine response with just the right amount of pique. —Mary Anne ⬥ I think the suggestion that the questioner respond with an 'idealized post-communist flat' was misguided. I think a better suggestion would be to respond with a more modest listing in a nonexotic location that reflects both the economic realities of the questioner and the realities of European life at that finance level. — Brian ⬥ To me, the issue is not what exotic locale to flee to, it's the focus on fleeing, and on that being something some of us may aspire to. My suggested response would be, 'Whatever the situation is, I'm not moving, so please don't send me any more real estate suggestions.' — Linda
Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Miami Herald
Dog left to die in apartment waited on her owners. Then came help, and a tail wag
A sweet dog in Philadelphia who was abandoned by her owners when they were tossed from their apartment is healing and surrounded by caring people who just want to help. Not only had Piper been left behind, she was slowly fading away while waiting for her beloved people to come back for her. 'Piper was left to die alone,' the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) said in a July 25 Facebook post. 'Imagine being so hungry that your ribs show through your fur. Imagine waiting by the door for someone who isn't coming back. That was Piper's reality reportedly for over two weeks. 'When her owner was evicted, they carefully packed every single belonging – every piece of furniture, every scrap of clothing, every dish and spoon. But they left behind one thing: Piper, their loyal pocket pittie.' With no one there to care for her or take her away, she could do nothing but wait. 'This sweet girl waited in that empty apartment. No food. No water. And slowly, her little body began to shut down,' the shelter said. 'When our officers were called to the scene in mid-June, Piper was in bad shape. Her tiny frame was skeletal – you could count every rib. She was vomiting, her eyes were infected and weeping, her ears full of painful discharge. Her legs, malformed from a lifetime of poor nutrition, could barely support her.' But there was still life in her eyes and that will to survive kicked in. 'But the most heartbreaking part? When our officers approached, Piper's tail still wagged. Even after being betrayed by the humans she trusted most, she still had hope,' the shelter said. 'Piper could have died alone in that apartment. Instead, we fought for her, and she fought too. She fought to live.' Piper is up for adoption and would thrive in a home where she's the only pet. For more information, visit the shelter's website.
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Newsweek
Golden Retriever Finds Chicken Nugget—Viewers in Hysterics by What Follows
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A golden retriever's unwavering determination to find a chicken nugget has left internet viewers in stitches, as the dog refuses to give up hope—weeks after finding one by chance. The video, shared by the dog's owner who posts under the handle @piperthegoldengirlie, shows Piper the golden retriever excitedly sniffing around a bush where she once discovered a stray nugget. The clip, which has received more than 34,000 likes and over 211,000 views on TikTok, captures the pup's daily commitment to nugget hunting. "My golden retriever found a chicken nugget here one morning 4 weeks ago and now we have to check every morning if there is a new one," the owner wrote in on-screen text. "It's part of our morning ritual now," they added in the caption. Piper's dedication might seem hilarious, but it is not unusual behavior for a dog. The American Kennel Club says that sniffing is a crucial way for canines to gather information, likened to humans scrolling social media. Returning to the same spots is common, as dogs remember areas where they have previously found interesting scents—or tasty treats. Golden retrievers in particular are known for their love of food and routine. The PDSA notes that this large, affectionate breed requires plenty of mental stimulation and a minimum of two hours exercise per day, which often include enthusiastic sniffing and occasional scavenging. While Piper's nugget quest is adorable, experts caution against letting dogs eat random finds on walks. The Ontario SPCA recommends teaching the "leave it" command and rewarding pups for ignoring tempting items. Using a short leash, avoiding high-risk areas, and carrying treats to redirect attention can also help prevent scavenging. Stock image: A golden retriever sniffs some grass. Stock image: A golden retriever sniffs some grass. Rupendra Singh Rawat/iStock / Getty Images Plus Still, internet users couldn't get enough of Piper's persistence. "Pls [please] hide a chicken nugget there," one posted. "If I lived anywhere near Charleston I'd be on my way to put chicken nuggets in that exact same spot rn [right now] are you kidding me," another commented. "He thinks it grows from the trees," added a user named Jorg. "Just take him to McDonald's," someone else wrote. "Excuse you, chicken nuggets bushes occur naturally. They only right to check," said Karli. Other dog owners could relate. "My pom still drags me back two years later to the spot he found a scotch egg one Boxing Day morning. I thought it was a tennis ball till he bit it and egg popped out," shared one commenter. Newsweek reached out to @piperthegoldengirlie for comment via TikTok. We could not verify the details of the case. Do you have funny and adorable videos or pictures of your pet you want to share? Send them to life@ with some details about your best friend, and they could appear in our Pet of the Week lineup.
