Six years ago, in September 2017, Metropolitan Police Department Officer Sean Lojacono searched two people on the same day. In both instances, about 30 minutes apart, Lojacono used the same invasive technique, which involved shoving his hand into a suspect’s crotch and buttocks.

For the first search, of M.B. Cottingham, which was caught on video, MPD imposed no discipline on Lojacono and instead issued him a “letter of prejudice”—not for the search, but for his failure to arrest Cottingham for an open container of alcohol. For the second, nearly identical search, MPD fired Lojacono in March of 2019 after a highly publicized administrative trial, known as an adverse action hearing, where police brass sit in judgment of officers facing suspension or termination.

Lojacono appealed his termination, and in November 2023 a third-party arbitrator ordered MPD to rehire him. (At the time, D.C. police officers’ collective bargaining agreement gave them the right to appeal disciplinary matters to arbitration.) The arbitrator’s ruling also awards Lojacono back pay, lost potential overtime wages, benefits, any forfeited leave, and any lost seniority; the ruling also instructs MPD to reinstate Lojacono to his old post on the Narcotics and Specialized Investigations Division.

The arbitrator largely sided with the primary arguments Lojacono gave during the adverse action hearing: that he was simply conducting searches as he was trained to do, and that MPD hadn’t fired other officers for similar tactics. MPD used him as a scapegoat for a widespread practice, Lojacono argued, essentially because the search of Cottingham was caught on a viral video and made the department look bad. A police supervisor even testified on Lojacono’s behalf at the hearing. MPD later fired him, too.

The department’s decision to downplay the first search of Cottingham “can only be said to have blessed, approved, legitimized and sanctioned [Lojacono’s] search of [the second man],” the arbitrator found. The Public Employee Relations Board upheld the arbitrator’s decision in March.

MPD could appeal PERB’s ruling to the D.C. Superior Court, as it has done consistently in similar cases where officers’ terminations are reversed. An MPD spokesperson referred City Paper’s questions on that issue to the Office of the Attorney General, which represents the department in these cases. An OAG spokesperson says their lawyers are reviewing the PERB’s opinion and weighing whether they will file an appeal.

Lojacono tells City Paper that he feels vindicated by the decision and is excited about his potential return to MPD and policing.

“I tried to pursue policing after this and right out of the gate was pretty disheartened in the application process,” he says. “So I took a step back, and life goes on. But I’d say we’re well on our way to finding some resolution here.”

For Cottingham, the reversal feels like a slap in the face. But he expected it.

“They give these officers back their jobs all the time,” he says. “It’s not the first time, and it’s not going to be the last time.”

Indeed, the D.C. Auditor revealed in a 2022 report that MPD was forced to rehire 37 officers and pay out $14.3 million in back pay between October 2015 and March 2021. Similar to Lojacono’s case, many of those reinstatements were the result of an arbitrator’s ruling. 

The D.C. Council aimed to address the issue with legislation, originally passed in 2020, that removes officers’ ability to negotiate over disciplinary decisions during collective bargaining. The DC Police Union filed a lawsuit over the new law, which effectively eliminates arbitrators from the process, but judges have rejected their arguments.

That third-party arbitrators will no longer be able to order MPD to rehire officers is of little comfort to Cottingham. He believes the arbitrator’s decision in Lojacono’s case sends a message that police can violate people’s rights without consequences. He says he’s now fearful of retaliation.

“I’m just glad it didn’t come to him shooting me,” Cottingham says. “I didn’t want to become a hashtag from the beginning.”

Adding to his distrust of police, Cottingham says he was threatened by an MPD supervisor when he initially tried to file a complaint over the search. He says a White officer with a buzz cut (he doesn’t remember the man’s name) told him, “if I proceeded with any further complaint or actions that they would issue a warrant for my arrest.” 

“That was a threat,” he says. “I had to deal with that.”

Cottingham then worked with the ACLU of D.C. in 2018 to file a lawsuit. He settled the case that December—just five months later—for $100,000, according to the attorney general’s office. Had he known Lojacono would get his job back, he says he might not have agreed to settle the case.

Scott Michelman, the ACLU’s legal director who represented Cottingham in the lawsuit, notes that D.C.’s offer to settle the case came relatively quickly after they issued a discovery demand for Lojacono’s disciplinary records.

“This was a very fast settlement by D.C. standards because they knew they had a problem,” he says. Michelman doesn’t agree with Lojacono’s reinstatement, but he places much of the blame on MPD.

“It’s not good enough for MPD to care about this problem for one officer when we sue them and the video comes out and it gets a lot of attention,” Michelman says. “They also have to care about the constitution when nobody’s looking because that’s part of their job.”

This article has been updated with comment from the Office of the Attorney General.