WFPD Chief, suspended officer testify in arbitration
WICHITA FALLS (KFDX/KJTL) — The City of Wichita Falls and a former officer with the Wichita Falls Police Department now await the decision of an independent examiner after an arbitration hearing concluded on Tuesday, June 3, 2025.
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
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
Who You Name Manager Isn't Just A Promotion. It's A Culture Decision
Human hand picking up a person from the row. Gallup's most recent workforce study uncovered a pressing concern for organizations focused on future-ready leadership. Gallup found that only 26 percent of current managers in the U.S. exhibit high natural talent for the role. This finding, based on Gallup's validated management talent screener, measures five critical dimensions: motivation to lead, drive for results, relationship-building ability, accountability, and systems thinking. This data is not just a research finding. It is a wake-up call for any organization committed to strategic talent development, succession planning and performance culture. That's why investing in high-potential talent matters. Gallup found that these managers are significantly more likely to engage in behaviors that create real value—sharing advice and ideas, mentoring others, building networks, going above and beyond, staying customer-focused, and offering meaningful feedback. And the effect multiplies when they're also engaged at work. These aren't soft perks. They're mission-critical behaviors in today's volatile, fast-changing business environment. As leadership roles evolve amid disruption, hybrid work, wellbeing demands and early-stage AI adoption, organizations must take a more intentional, evidence-based approach to selecting who leads. Right now, too many managers are being placed in roles based on tenure, technical success, or timing. And it's not working. Even among high-talent managers, only 51 percent say their current role is a great fit. That's not the average. That's the best. These are the individuals most likely to thrive. Yet nearly half feel miscast, underutilized, or disconnected from the role they've been given. It's not a lack of ambition. In fact, 42 percent say it is extremely important for them to become a senior leader or lead other managers someday. Meanwhile, 77 percent of those same high-talent managers report feeling confident in their ability to do their current job. But confidence without context is not a reliable indicator of effectiveness—especially as the role continues to shift. The core challenge is not capability, but alignment. Importantly, confidence in meeting today's expectations doesn't guarantee continued performance in a disruptive future. What's needed is a higher degree of future readiness—and that's where things get difficult. Gallup research found that only about 1 in 3 high-potential managers strongly agree they understand the gaps between what they know now and what they'll need to lead in the future. Even the most promising managers need structured guidance, focused coaching and intentional confidence building to close that gap. The question organizations must be asking is: Are we matching the right people to the right roles, at the right time and in line with what the future demands? Gallup also found that 30 percent of employees are actively seeking new roles within their current organization. Of those, 72 percent are looking for a promotion over a lateral move. This reflects a longstanding cultural narrative: advancement equals up. But that assumption can backfire—especially when management is viewed as the default step forward. Leadership is not the right next move for everyone. When employees are placed in people-leader roles based on tenure, ambition, or availability, it creates downstream risk. Teams underperform. Culture fragments. Burnout and disengagement rise. Misfit roles aren't just a hiring mistake. They're often a result of old habits. Promotions get handed out based on tenure, loyalty, or urgency to fill a gap. Sometimes it's just easier to move someone up than pause and ask if they're truly wired to lead. There's also a quiet bias at play. When someone wants to lead, we assume they can. But ambition isn't the same as ability. Without a clear look at motivation and natural talent, good people land in the wrong roles for the wrong reasons. If lateral pathways are going to become part of an internal mobility strategy, then talent must become the non-negotiable filter. Lateral movement should be designed to stretch strengths, not patch internal gaps or offer placeholder promotions — or worse pseudo-promotions — titles or roles with limited or no real authority. They are still called managers. But they do everything but manage. Gallup's findings show clear differences in why individuals pursue leadership. High-talent managers are far more likely to cite motivations like developing others, fostering team success, and creating a better work environment. Others, on the other hand, more often mention compensation, title, or organizational pressure. While all motives are human, only some are sustainable. When people step into leadership without a people-first mindset, the risk is not just poor performance. It is cultural erosion. Organizations must evaluate not just if someone can manage, but why they want to. The expectations placed on managers today are broader, more human-centered even as they are increasingly tech-driven, and more complex. Yet, managers are less engaged than before and many are looking for change. They are also struggling more than the people they lead. And even with all that they are still expected to: And yet, many selection processes are still designed around static role descriptions, past performance, or organizational convenience. Technology is accelerating this gap. Gallup reports that only 15 percent of white-collar employees use AI weekly, yet 45 percent of those who do report greater productivity and efficiency. While AI is not the main story here, it is a signal. Managers who are more naturally adaptive—those with higher leadership talent—are also more likely to engage with new tools and you still the pizza in the lead differently because of them. AI will not replace managers, but it will make clear who is learning, growing, and leading effectively in a changing environment. Here are five strategic shifts organizations can make to close the gap: Leadership should not be a thank-you for past performance. It is a specialized role requiring the right match of talent, motivation, and organizational need. Growth does not always mean promotion. Design lateral roles with intent, and use talent as the starting point—not the fallback plan. Relying on instinct or tenure leads to misalignment. Use validated assessments to understand natural leadership ability before making selection decisions. High-talent managers need challenge, mentorship, and runway. Others may need targeted support, or a different kind of growth path altogether. Focus on indicators like adaptability, systems thinking, resilience under pressure, and the ability to elevate others. These matter as much as technical skill or functional success. Managers account for as much as 70 percent of the variance in team engagement and performance. Who you choose to lead your teams has an outsized impact on your culture, your brand, and your bottom line. Right now, many managers are in roles that don't match their talent or their motivation. Others are stepping into leadership because it's the only visible form of progress. And even your highest-potential leaders may be feeling disconnected from the role they're in. That is not a pipeline problem. That is a perspective problem. It is time to replace default promotion paths with deliberate selection strategies. It is time to reward stewardship, not just ambition. And it is time to ask better questions—about who is built to lead, why they want to, and how we can help them do it well. The future of your culture depends on the choices you make today about who you trust to lead it. Disclosure: My day job is focusing on leadership development and strategy research for Gallup.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
This Mom Needed a Break So Her Baby Watched TV—and No, She Shouldn't Feel Guilty
I have a crystal clear memory of the first time I positioned my daughter in front of the television. My maternity leave had just ended, so she must have been 7 months old. I was trying to work from home and care for her, and it was not working. So I did the only thing that I hadn't tried to distract her, while I got a few minutes of work done: I turned on the Disney short Piper, and let the moving images captivate her attention. The mom guilt hit me like a tsunami, and pretty soon after, we hired a babysitter to help me out at home. But that period in my life immediately resurfaced when I read a recent Reddit post by the mom of a 15-week old baby, who reluctantly let her kid watch Ms. Rachel for more than an hour. In the post, she writes, 'Part of me feels so guilty, and the other part isn't sorry at all.' She used the time to clean her house and eat a full meal. And guess what? Afterward, she felt 'better now that the house is cleaner and my belly is full.' She goes on to write that since her baby was born, she has been dealing with 'severe postpartum anxiety,' and just needed a space to vent because 'the mom guilt is real.' I feel you there, mama. The priority should of course be her mental and physical health, and yet doubt creeps into her mind when she reads comments from other parents scolding her because, as she writes, 'the mess can wait, you can't get this time back.' The problem with this supposedly well-meaning advice is that it insists that parents pour every ounce of energy and attention into their children—moms in particular are supposed to be self-sacrificing even if it means they go hungry and live in a cluttered house. These days, this advice feels outdated, even damaging. Sure, experts do advise that kids avoid screens until at least the age of 2, so parents shouldn't necessarily make a habit out of letting their young kids watch TV. But there's a flipside to that: If a clean house makes a new parent feel sane and clear-headed, then they should be able to take an hour to make the space where they are spending every day with their baby feel comfortable. Mom guilt (or guilt directed at any parent) makes us all feel like no matter what we do—choosing to do chores while the kids watch TV or playing with the kids while the mess piles up—it's never the right choice. We overexert ourselves trying to meet impossible standards, and it leaves many parents burnt out, cranky, and disconnected from their families. That's why I couldn't possibly find fault in a mom for choosing to prioritize herself for one day, so she can be a better caretaker for her baby in the future. For the most part, commenters on her post agreed. As one put it, 'You can't pour from an empty cup, cleaning and eating was absolutely necessary. Your baby will absolutely be ok.' Another commenter noted that moms in particular are judged no matter what they do. 'Whether it's formula v breast milk, screen time v no screen time, what toys you use, what diapers you use…At the end of the day, we're all out here trying to do our best and your best will always be good enough for your baby!' they wrote. So if it comes down to it, parents, try to let go of the guilt you feel when you choose to nourish yourself, even if it means the kids get a little screen time. As one person on Reddit put it, 'Your girl isn't going to be any worse or better off for watching 'Ms. Rachel', but she will be better off by having a healthy parent and home.' Read the original article on Parents
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
22 plead guilty in Wichita Falls drug conspiracy case
WICHITA FALLS (KFDX/KJTL) — A two-year-long investigation by the Wichita Falls Police Department's Special Operations Division and the FBI's Wichita Falls Agency ended with 22 defendants pleading guilty to drug charges. The investigation began in October 2022 for illegal narcotics being distributed throughout Wichita Falls and North Texas. The FBI's Wichita Falls Resident Agency joined the investigation in March 2023. PREVIOUS STORY: List of suspects arrested in major federal operation Police said over the next year, hours of surveillance, interviews, search warrants, and controlled buys were conducted to build a successful Federal conspiracy case. 6,789.2 grams of methamphetamine, 719 grams of powder cocaine, 55.1 grams of crack cocaine, 2,197 counterfeit M-30 pills laced with Fentanyl, 50 grams of powder Fentanyl, nine firearms, and $80,714 were seized. On May 16, 2024, WFPD, the FBI, Texas Department of Public Safety, Wichita County Sheriff's Office, and the United States Marshals conducted a large-scale arrest operation in Wichita Falls and Vernon. Twenty-two subjects were arrested on Federal Conspiracy drug charges. All 22 people were prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Montes and pleaded guilty. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
