The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Rhode Island has urged the City Council to more deeply examine the practices and conduct of the Cranston Police Department, citing judicial findings related to a high-profile murder case.

Council President John E. Lanni Jr., meanwhile, said he is open to the recommendation – but will not “jump the gun” as Rhode Island State Police continue their own review of the department’s operations.

“I leave the door open,” Lanni said during Monday’s meeting of the council. “This all depends on the state police investigation.”

The July 22 letter from ACLU Executive Director Steven Brown – addressed to Lanni and copied to the rest of the council, Mayor Allan Fung, Acting Police Chief Kevin Barry and City Clerk Maria Wall – indicates the organization is “concerned” that allegations of retaliatory parking ticketing on the part of police from late last year “may have inadvertently deflected the city’s attention from other extremely troubling allegations of police misconduct by Cranston police.”

Brown in the letter specifically cites the case of Michael Patino, who was charged with murder in the 2009 death of his girlfriend’s 6-year-old son.

The state’s Supreme Court last month issued a key ruling in the case, overturning in part a lower court’s finding that police had illegally searched cell phones and used that information in their questioning. The high court found Patino had no expectation of privacy for text messages sent to another person’s phone – in this case, one used by his girlfriend.

The ruling did, however, uphold the finding that police had illegally searched phones belonging to Patino himself, excluding that evidence from trial.

Brown’s letter focuses on the lower court’s findings related to the conduct of Cranston police during the investigation into the child’s death. Now-retired Superior Court Judge Judith Savage in that decision had cited concerns over the testimony and warrant affidavits of some officers, the handling of evidence and failure to adhere to basic procedure at the crime scene.

Brown’s letter cites the judge’s conclusion: “In all, the Court finds that the Cranston Police Department’s actions – both with regard to the illegal search and the ensuing investigation into Defendant’s culpability – manifested an overall attitude of gross negligence, if not downright recklessness, in blatant disregard of the requirements of the law.”

Brown writes that while his organization recognizes the ongoing nature of Patino’s criminal case, the court findings and the ticketing allegations suggest a “broader pattern of police misconduct that cannot be ignored.”

“A resolution initially proposed by the City Council in response to the ticket scandal noted the importance of determining ‘whether some Cranston police officers violated the law, their oath of office or police department procedures,’ and emphasized that ‘the citizens of Cranston deserve a police department that is trusted by residents and free of scandal,’” Brown writes. “We agree, but rather than viewing the parking ticket scandal as an isolated incident, we urge the City Council to consider whether, particularly in light of the court rulings in the Patino case, a more comprehensive resolution and more thorough investigation are warranted.”

Ward 6 Councilman Michael W. Favicchio was sharply critical of the ACLU during Monday’s meeting, calling Brown’s letter “self-serving” and saying he is “disappointed” in the executive director. He cited the ongoing nature of the criminal case, and pointed to Brown’s own admission in the letter that the call for further investigation may be premature given the ongoing state police involvement.

“It’s totally inappropriate at this point in time,” he said.

Lanni, despite his stated willingness to pursue further action depending on the findings of state police, said he is proceeding cautiously.

“I don’t want to see two investigations in this city going on at the same time,” he said. “Until I have all the facts, I am not going to jump the gun.”

In January, state police assigned temporary leadership to the Cranston department and began, at the request of Fung, both an investigation of the ticketing allegations and a broader review of local police personnel matters and operations. The overall review remains ongoing, and officials have disclosed few details regarding its timeframe and the degree to which its findings will be made public.

The ticketing allegations stem from December, when Ward 1 Councilman Steven A. Stycos and Ward 3 Councilman Paul H. Archetto made public their belief their wards had been targeted with overnight parking tickets following a vote of the council’s Finance Committee against a new contract with the city’s police union.

The fallout has been extensive. Former Cranston chief Col. Marco Palombo Jr. was placed on paid leave when state police became involved in January, and in March was reinstated for the sole purpose of submitting retirement papers. State police have also recommended the firing of Cranston Capt. Stephen Antonucci, who served as president of the police union. He has been charged with multiple counts of misconduct, and is alleged to have been solely responsible for the ticket blitz.

The situation also shone new light on several personnel matters tied to Palombo’s tenure, and council members at a finance committee meeting earlier this month expressed frustration with the total cost – estimated at $580,000 to date – of legal bills and other expenses associated with those situations.

The city is currently searching for a new permanent police chief, and Fung has said finalists have been chosen from a field of six applicants. Administration officials have said they plan to have a new chief in place no later than September.