DC Superior Court Judge Signs Arrest Warrants for Six Officers Accused of About $440,000 in Overtime and Duty-Time Fraud

A D.C. Superior Court judge signed arrest warrants on Aug. 18, 2026 for six Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers accused of submitting claims for overtime and regular-duty hours they allegedly did not work during 2024, according to a report published Aug. 20, 2026. The warrants are part of a criminal case alleging a payroll-related fraud scheme involving officers assigned to the MPD’s Fifth District.

The reported warrants name Peter Sheldon, Frantz Fulcher, Thomas Krmenec, and Bernadette (last name not provided in the available report excerpt), along with two other officers whose names are not included in the description provided. The allegations center on the claim that the officers fraudulently reported overtime hours and regular-duty time they did not perform, tied to their assigned duties in 2024.

The report characterizes the alleged misconduct as a $440,000 overtime fraud matter. In addition to overtime claims, the warrants reportedly also focus on purportedly false reporting of regular-duty hours, which prosecutors and the court would treat as part of the same alleged conduct involving compensation tied to work time.

The timing of the judicial action places the warrants in late August 2026, following the alleged 2024 conduct that the report says is at issue. Because arrest warrants are court-authorized and require a finding of probable cause at issuance, the signing date marks a formal escalation from investigation to a stage where law enforcement is authorized to take the accused into custody if they are located.

For the MPD and the District of Columbia, the reported allegations raise issues about internal controls, timesheet verification, and payroll integrity. If the claims are ultimately sustained in court, the practical effects can include restitution, criminal penalties, termination or other employment actions for individuals found liable, and tighter scrutiny of timekeeping and overtime approvals across districts.

The report does not provide the charging documents, the exact counts, the specific legal statutes invoked, or any scheduled court dates in the available excerpt. As a result, the case’s procedural posture beyond the warrant issuance cannot be independently confirmed here, including whether some or all of the accused were already arrested, released on bond, or expected to appear in court.

The next steps in the matter would typically involve execution of the warrants (if they have not already been served), arraignment, and motions practice in D.C. Superior Court. The prosecution would be expected to proceed on the specific counts that correspond to the alleged overtime and regular-duty time fraud, while the defense would have opportunities to contest probable cause-related issues, evidence, and alleged involvement at trial.

Under U.S. due-process norms, the officers named in warrants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court. An arrest warrant indicates that a judge has authorized law enforcement to arrest a person based on the prosecution’s evidence at the time of issuance, not that guilt has been established.