Georgia State Patrol fired three troopers and their supervisor after an internal investigation found they sought personal-injury payments connected to police pursuits, the Georgia Department of Public Safety said in a news release. The department said the troopers violated Georgia Department of Public Safety policy and ethical standards, including limits on employees seeking compensation tied to actions taken as part of their jobs.
The investigation began in January after another trooper told his supervisor he had heard comments and jokes about which recent chases would qualify for a “check.” Investigators said they later reviewed the conduct of the troopers involved in the scheme and the steps they allegedly took to connect crash reports from pursuits to insurance claims.
According to the department’s account, the troopers used their patrol vehicles during pursuits to stop targeted vehicles, including use of a PIT maneuver described as a “precision immobilization technique.” Investigators said that after using their vehicles to stop a chase, the troopers sent crash reports to a private attorney, who then would submit personal injury claims tied to the incidents.
The department said the attorney would file the claims and that the troopers would receive money when an insurance company settled out of court. It said their payouts were intended to supplement their paychecks, and investigators found the troopers participated in a practice that appeared to amount to a conflict of interest with their law enforcement duties.
The release identified the troopers involved as Hunter Waters, Tyler Byrd and Isaiah Francois, who were all based in southeast Georgia, according to investigators. Their supervisor, Sgt. Joseph Curlee, also came under scrutiny, and investigators said Curlee asked the lawyer to submit a claim on his behalf, though he did not receive any compensation.
Curlee told investigators he did not believe the practice violated department policy, saying he thought the troopers were acting as private citizens. The troopers, meanwhile, disputed the ethical concerns in their own statements to investigators, with the report summary describing Francois as saying he saw “no ethical violation” in seeking payments.
According to the investigation summary obtained through an open records request, Waters—who had been a trooper since February 2018—was the first state trooper found to have taken part in the practice. Investigators said Waters told the other troopers about the approach after he learned from a sheriff’s deputy about hiring an attorney to file claims against drivers’ insurers, and that he then pulled crash reports from chases he had been involved in and asked the same lawyer to file claims.
The report summary said Waters’ injury claims cited sleeplessness, soreness, anxiety and stress. It also said the lawyer sent demand letters for Waters and that, at the time of the investigation, Waters had received $25,000 for each of three claims, with the lawyer taking a third of each payment.
Investigators said Byrd, who started with the state patrol in January 2022, told them he received two $25,000 settlements and that the lawyer kept a third. The report summary said Byrd and the others viewed the claims as “a way to make money in addition to (a) paycheck,” as he told investigators.
Francois, who had been a trooper since July 2023, told investigators he expected to receive $25,000 minus the lawyer’s third after he received a signed settlement release from an insurer, according to the summary. The release described demand letters provided to investigators for claims involving Byrd and Francois, saying five letters sent to insurers did not mention that they were law enforcement officers and did not disclose that the vehicle contact occurred as part of their job.
The department said its policy bars employees from seeking compensation from activity connected to their official duties without permission from the commissioner, and that no commanding officers or the commissioner were told about the demand letters. The summary said the practice appeared to subject the entire department to “a damaged reputation, disparaged image, and public distrust.”