8 @!

;

:Jimc.lendar
t3 Chedtl:at
ijillCOf\tacts
Deleted lte:ms {10)

r?if E;a!!...-atiar.s:



&lNol:es
(iJl O<Jli>ox
Seolltems

it! Search Foldes
?!IT's
F'ET
?ET
PET
.
Your InC". ::overs_
.. .. ....

. .. .....

..... .. .
FW: lOth Ar:r.u,;.\ Renter, PollceJFF.e r<totor.:ycie RJde
PET
.. .. ..
...F.ELON.!N..Cl.JS!OD:C.........
........ .. ....... .
....
....

...
. ..
. .....

.
.
....
... ...
2f5j2DOS

3KB
3KO
!SKB
3Ke
2!\3
3!<3
4!<3
y
[:

v
....iiZ.i"iiOS... 2r:a ..
:;;]J2605.... 242!<3 ...u'?
........................ . 14 KB
_?-!=f'200S
l/17/2fJGS
.. 1S..iii ..
3r3
1M8
i":' '.{
'l
..... .............. .11:5.QQQSL. ........................... .3.B.......L: ...:1:..,,;,rl
W:1
iiiEl Contad>
Deletedltems (m)
tl!!Draft:s
UBI E-;alt..-atie>ru>

uxa lnhox

!iJl.liotes

.. ms

tB Foiders ......

.. ............. .. .... ..... ........... ............. ......... .. .................... ..... ..::..:o:l
'OF ?RESCP.!FTION
......... .. .:! ..::.;.:""" ......................... -- : ...: ...1
.............
, .. ..........,, ... ' ., ,,,_,;.,.,.. ;, '""'"''' ..
Renton Police Department General Orders Manual
Length of Commitment Trustee Status
Population
1-5 days 1 day
6-8 days 3 days
9-11 days 4 days
12-14 days 5 days
15-17 days 6 days
18-20 days 7 days
21-23 days 8 days
24-26 days 9 days
27-29 days 10 days
30 days 11 days
General
No good time
2 days
3 days
4 days
5 days
6 days
7 days
8 days
9 days
10 day
2
Effective Date: 07/01/2000
Renton Police Department General Orders Manual
AUX-022
GOOD TIME, FINES AND PAYMENT OF BAIL
Reference:
I. Good Time, Fines and Payment of Bail
2
Effective Date: 07/01/2000
(
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CITY OF LNTON POLICE DEP
MEMORANDUM
7 April, 2009
Clark Wilcox/Jail & Staff Svcs Commander
/EHD Coordinator
SUBJECT:
DOB , was booked into Renton City Jail on 30 September, 2008, on
two counts of Theft 3 and one count of Criminal Trespass. He was sentenced to 300 days in jail for
these crimes and selected to be a trustee in Renton Jail. Mr. has been booked into Renton
Jail many times before and worked effectively as jail trustee previously.
On March 31, 2009, Mr. asked Sergeant if he could talk to the Jail Commander.
If this could be arranged, he requested a witness be present during the conversation. He stated he
trusted Evidence Technician or EHD/Jailer to witness this discussion. Commander Wilcox
agreed to talk with Mr. and EHD/Jailer agreed to witness the event. At approximately
1630 hours, Commander Wilcox and EHD met with Mr. in the jail courtroom to hear
what he had to say.
Mr. appeared to be troubled and uneasy talking about the information he was providing to
Commander Wilcox. He said he was due to be released from jail the next day on April1, 2009, and
had nothing to gain by saying what he had to say to Commander Wilcox. He could have easily been
released and no one would have known anything more but felt what he had to say was very important
and what he observed in the jail was just not right.
He stated he had been trustee in the jail for about six months. During this time he had observed
many things including the staff getting very comfortable with him around and sharing information he
felt should never be shared with someone in his position. He stated he should not know details of
how the jail is run and other important information that only the hierarchy should know. When
asked by Commander Wilcox what he was referring to, Mr. said he knew the combination
to the key lock box. When asked what it was, he nervously said he could not remember right now.
He said if he wanted to escape, which he would never do, he would have had many opportunities to
do so, while working as trustee.
Mr. said he was especially troubled recently when he asked what his actual release date
would be from Renton Jail. He is currently homeless and wanted to know so he could make
arrangements to have somewhere to go when he left Renton Jail. With normal good time, he was
due to be released fromjaill3 April, 2009. Since he was trustee, it was customary for the trustee to
Page 1 of2
( (
CITY O:F RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
(Cont.)
Memo Page 2
be, "Gifted" more good time and released at an earlier date. He asked Sergeant what his
release date would be. Sergeant did not establish a new release date for Mr.
prior to starting his days off. Frustrated, Mr. asked Sergeant who was now on
duty, to do the same. Sergeant said he would give him a release date if Mr. would
write a letter stating Sergeant is incompetent and an indecisive sergeant. After saying
that, Sergeant wrote a release date of 1 April, 2009, next to Mr. name on the jai1
population board. He stated another jailer came into the kitchen later and told him to not seal the
letter, as they would like to read it. Commander Wilcox asked who the other jailer was and Mr.
stated, ''Officer ."
During the six months Mr. has been trustee, he said it has been pretty obvious that Sergeant
jailers, who work for him, are his friends and have no respect for Sergeant
Mr. again said he knows things he shouldn't know about what goes on in the jail like how
Sergeant has had three incidents and no longer can go out on the floor. He said
approximately two weeks ago he heard Sergeant use force on someone in the cell next to his
and he was pretty sure the use of force was never documented or written up. He said he believes
things like that are just wrong. He said he hates to see what they are trying to do to Sergeant
( because, in his opinion, Sergeant is the better sergeant of the two.
Mr. nervously continued the conversation trying his best to answer Commander Wilcox's
questions. Mr. said he was very concerned about what would happen to him if he ever had
to come back to Renton Jail. He stated if everyone knew he was telling Commander Wilcox this
information, he would not be made trustee again and would be concerned for his safety.
Commander Wilcox told Mr. he was welcome to write the letter he was asked to write, sea1
it, and give it to Commander Wilcox the next morning. Commander Wilcox said he was not
ordering Mr. to write the letter but would appreciate him writing in his words what
happened. Mr. said he would write the letter and give it to Commander Wilcox before
being released from Renton Jail.
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true
and correct as I remember from the conversation conducted with Mr. 31 March, 2009.
EHD Coordinator
Renton Police Department
Auxiliary Services Division
425.430.7610
Page 2 of2
On Saturday March 28, 2009; I returned a phone message left on my home
phone by His message was not work related and was about
possible construction work behind our houses. I returned his call and we talked
about the construction. At the conclusion of our discussion about the
construction, asked me if he could bounce some information off of me and
ask my opinion about an incident at work from the day before. I told him he
could.
These are the main points that I remember from the conversation I had with
5 days ago:
He was told by Jailer Gannon the previous day (Friday March 2ih) that
inmate trustee was acting weird.
went to talk to and told him that he should watch
his back.
said that he thought that he was talking about inmates, and
told him no, that it's the other Jail staff, supervised by the other Jail
Sergeant.
told that they, a few members of the other Sergeants Jail
staff and the Sergeant, had come to him asking for him ( to write
a letter to the Jail Administration, concerning inability to make a
decision.
told that he was told he may get more good time off his
sentence if he wrote this letter.
I told to contact Cmdr. Wilcox. was concerned that some
may believe that he was jumping to conclusions. I recommended that
may want to discuss this issue with RPOG President Coleman, and
get a 2nd opinion.
After my conversation with I notified RPOG President Mark Coleman of
this situation and that I had recommended to that he needed to pass this
information on to Cmdr. Wilcox, and that he may possibly call Mark for a 2nd
opinion.
On the afternoon of Tuesday March 31st, I received a phone call while at home,
from He asked if I would be willing to sit in with when he spoke
to Cmdr. Wilcox, on the morning of Wednesday April 1st. He said that
wanted someone that he felt comfortable with in the meeting with Cmdr. Wilcox.
did not think that he should sit in with them and asked if he would
like to have me in the meeting with Cmdr. Wilcox. said that he would like
me in with him. I told that I would sit in with them.
A short time later, I received another phone call from stating that he had
talked to Cmdr. Wilcox and that was sitting in with and
Cmdr. Wilcox now, and I was not needed on Wednesday morning.
On Wednesday April 1st I was ordered by Cmdr. Wilcox to not talk about this
iW:t ~ 6<j/otlo'l
0 ; ~ ~ - )
(
On 3-27-2009 I had a conversation with inmate about the stress of
getting out and his obligations to DOC, and mental health. At the beginning of the
conversation was very defensive and stressed. We discussed the burdens of
DOC, mental health, finding a job and place to stay as well as him missing his father who
passed away while he was in jail, and not being able to travel to Moses Lake to visit his
mother due to probation restrictions. After a while of talking asked ifhe had
done something wrong because I was treating him differently than past times. I told him
I've been focused on work and other things, and that I was sorry he felt that way.
said I wasn't being "real" like I have in the past. We talked for a bit more and as
. we were concluding our conversation said for me to watch my back. I asked
what he meant by that. said not from me or other inmates, from people who
work here. I told him I have had a hunch about things going on around here, maybe that's
why I seem different. at first was trying to be discrete because he didn't want to
get in trouble from the people who have approached him. He s a ~ d they want me to write a
letter saying you are indecisive as sergeant. I wanted to seem like was objective about the
subject the topic and told to write the letter if that's what he feels is the right
thing to do and turned the conversation in a different direction. We began to conclude the
conversation again and said he didn't want to write the letter and he as an inmate
should have never been put into that situation. I agreed, and wanted more information I
told in a vague there are 4 people I can think ofthat approached you, there are
others who may have but not likely, and a few I would not think of them asking you to do
something like that. began talldng more about it and describing the people who
are behind it. He said one of them is not working here now. I asked you mean he's on his
days off? No he's our training. In an attempt not to name names also mentioned
another is the one who wears things on his sleeve like you. He also said you can pretty
much be assured the people who are out to get you are the people who are around the
other sergeant. I told I appreciate his being candid and gave him another option.
I told he can write the letter ifhe see fit, or do nothing at all, or ifhe seems
necessary he can go to the commander of the jail or maybe the chief of police. But what
ever his choice he can't carry yet another burden on his back. We talked a bit more about
his father said he was buried in Wenatchee. We talked about how much
Wenatchee has changed in the last few years, and all the new houses. At the conclusion
of our talk looked at me and said now you're being "real" like you were in the
past.
(
Talked with again today 5.31.2009. approached me while I was
walking from the nurse's office to the control room.
He began talking about his DOC obligations and the nurse gave him some resources for
mental health. Again he talked about the being asked to write a letter about my inability
to be a supervisor. Again said he wanted to talk to the jail commander tomorrow
when he left jail. I told him I don't think it is right for me to be involved in the
conversation with the commander, but we could send someone he felt comfortable with
and trust.eq. My first thoughts were Evidence Tech agreed, he knows
from when-he was in jail in the past and trusts him.
said he was nervous about the situation because the other sergeant implied his
early release depended on the letter. also said he knows how the other sergeant
deals with force and has seen him taser an irimate over and over. went on to
mention he remembers that night because he heard talking about having 3 force
situations and need to stay in the control room so he doesn't go over. I believe
because I have witnessed speaking on like this in years past.
In addition to the threat to his release date, said approached him and
told him what to put in the letter. And in the past the guy at the training center, as
calls him approached him too.
said it's not right that he gets put in this situation, and he wants to do the right
thing.
I talked to Commander Wilcox about what had told me and the plan was for
to talk to him when he leaves jail Wednesday with as a witness. Cmdr
Wilcox's morning was already full. I returned to the jail and spoke to I asked if
he would be okay with sitting in on the conversation. said yes.
In my conversations with I could tell the subject weighed heavily on him. He
lmows the people who approached him were wrong and he wants to tell the proper
people, but he has concern about what could happen to him if he ever came back to jail.
(
<j) e..l}-r Lo m vY\ vur, Jt v-- {A} t L t-o X /V7 y ;v'tf!Q
tS: l%Vld arM
CtV'I 0c--+ '--r-:<:t-ni-on C--r-/- y Ji>cJ L
f o v- y o vvr 1 v\J\o v- rY\ cdr 0 l'\ . I f1 Oc\J IL Y) of,)-. 11)
1D t>'rom +""-d' or -fhL -
I h-f6 r-Mct+J Dl) L + C-on --j-ow
11
f' I 'A-Y'IJ fOvV
e...vtv- JaY)t__
1
fhtJ'
1
{ f r robG<bl y +h,J
ev <Z--If ci;&n Q_ v b<LLC><..,vtJ''<.___ --4-h -t , n/)e rmttl-ton
A.efiFiV\ t s 7 ouvvJ t:-ul w\fj
o A \J. t)j C\_ y c:c. b 0?---t J''' +, beLn
L L +' -/--e__ J f'ro rn jV\ Q__ ( b tt+ 1 t!1 cuJ aft,._ 'l.,v
f noV!) /);y()"V{... Job__C-QvJ-L fA 1 t
tlfJ Uj} 1"
on CLif--oKI Y 3- 18-09 or -1-J-.o_,v(L
_ ,
6J/('Ld k1W\. wh.o+,IMY
LDoJ'
1
JivL Wllfiv+ D< .fo
ioCA-t-l( fo n; L CVv\ J uJCA__f fh L
J of'. h If 3 -/),if_ rlJl>l'l
+old fVJL
1
, UJOttJ\d
mlL Wtwv+ +o l M -4h L-- edfv
'I. h-of<!- * \ )' ( J }/II! t 'j U>ye-L 1-- o
$ ... ,1 ' --7
. . l1Wl DlsJ&UJ f5vJ 1/t o-f, on
f';f' h) y Wli-L 51 v t. t-f /-a
!/OVL /11 ptv! vf) $ I j: 6Uil Y
\?U-+kQv p ::{ j tyf_ tjDI/L J&f
of mQ. o-v-f MJr-cyJ .
J vv<1-t'\ you... y ..
/AaN/ jovvv
oM J q:
0
r y __. o 11 fj,._ (!__ {A)'(() VvJ
(t:L
S'1JL of' -1-kQ.. lAv0 1 ::fffl
uav-y 3ooJ pe-vSon'
I
I
I
! .
\
.:5/Z ((/$; /%-//lG
!c- 5/C-?,?83
Zo, - 5z
6
._ ? (" <.:c;
(
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
April 5, 2009
Commander C.Wilcox


I am writing this memo at your request for inclusion in the investigation of circumstances
surrounding Jail Sgt. He and I have a friendship that extends past the Renton
Police Department and we frequently discuss many things, one of them being work. In
the past he has confided in me and asked my advice on how to handle situations that
arise. Although not official, to some degree I mentor him and try to give him advice.
On March 28, 2009 he confided in me during a conversation that he was really stressed
out, upset and losing sleep over an incident that occurred in the Jail. He advised me that
he noticed that a trustee was not acting like himself and he was concerned for him. He
asked the trustee what was going on, and if ( could help him. The trustee confided
that he was upset because he is due to be released soon and that he was struggling with a
decision he didn't want to make. The trustee then told that he had better watch his
back. Sgt. asked him ifthere was a resistance from the inmates and the trustee
stated "no, it's the people you work with". He went on to say that two other jailers, one
described as the guy who recently left, and the other as the guy with the stripes on his
arms are mounting a campaign to get you fired. The trustee stated he was told to write a
letter stating that Sgt. is ineffective at his job, that he cannot make a decision,
that nobody likes working for him, that no one has any faith in him. stated that he
told the trustee to write the letter if he wanted and that wouldn't hold it against
him. The trustee stated he was upset because he didn't want to write a disparaging letter
that was untrue, but he didn't want to deal with the trouble he would be in if he didn't.
I advised Sgt. that he needed to report this to Commander Wilcox and I
advised him that I would also be following up with Commander Wilcox with an in person
meeting. related to me that he feels like he is being treated unfairly, harassed and
systematically targeted with his termination as the end goal.
Prior to my meeting with Commander Wilcox on March 30, 2009 I was speaking with
Deputy ChiefMarsalisi about a different matter and asked for some general advice. I
confided that I was worried about Sgt. and that an incident occurred which
caused him to distrust other Jail staff. He agreed that I needed to follow up personally
with Commander Wilcox and apprise him of the situation.
I
(
Commander Wilcox
Page 2 of2
April 5, 2009
(
In between meetings in the late morning, I was able to speak with Commander Wilcox
and express my concerns over the allegations of inmate coercion and a possible campaign
by fellow employees to tarnish Sgt. reputation and employment.
At the conclusion of our meeting, I called and re-iterated that he needed to report
the incident to Commander Wilcox. Since that call, I have had no further involvement.
R

Summary
co -03-09
Allegation #1 Violation of City Harassment Policy 300-3
(
City of Renton Harassment policy states in part, "Work place harassment is defined as conduct
that unreasonably interferes with the affected persons work performance or creates an
intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment."
Finding: Sustained
The investigation revealed that:
o Sgt has participated in and allowed work place harassment by his direct
subordinates.
o Sgt knows the contents of the City of Renton's Harassment polfcy and requires
his employees to initial that the City of Renton's Harassment policy has been explained
to them during their annual evaluation.
o Sgt said that he was just venting when he talked negatively about Sgt
to his subordinates and Manager Bartley.
Allegation #2 Violation of General Order 26.1.16 Unbecoming Conduct
Unbecoming Conduct- Members of the Police Department shall conduct themselves at all times,
both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the Department.
Unbecoming conduct shall include that which brings the Department into disrepute or reflects
discredit upon the individual as a member of the Police Department, or that which impairs the
operation or efficiency of the Department or the individual.
Finding: Sustained
o Sgt demonstrated unbecoming conduct as a supervisor who created and/or
allowed work place harassment. Sgt was asked in his first interview, "Have your
actions or words ever worked in a manner to discredit Sgt with any other City
employee?" He answered, "Yes."
o Sgt said he has vented to his supervisor at that time, Manager Bartley, about Sgt
which is acceptable as she was a direct supervisor to both of them. What is
not acceptable conduct is for a supervisor to have conversations with other subordinate
City employees regarding Sgt performance.
o Sgt was asked if he had any specific recollections of any such conversations in
which he talked to subordinates about Sgt abilities. Sgt referred to
an incident over small plastic contraband baggies that were found in an inmate's
property when the inmate was being transferred to another facility. The contraband
baggies were not found during the intake property search by members of Sgt
squad. Jailer found the contraband baggies and advised Sgt
about finding contraband in the inmate's property. Jailer requested that
he be able to keep the contraband baggies to show the other squad (Sgt
(,
squad) of the find. Sgt told Jailer to put them in his jail locker and when
they came back to work, he could address his concerns and findings. Sgt was
told by other jail staff that Jailer put the contraband baggies in his jail locker. Sgt
retrieved them and notified Manager Bartley. Sgt then placed the
contraband baggies into evidence and completed a case report. According to Sgt
there was nothing in the contraband baggies. He felt Sgt was making
accusations that Jailer was storing dope in his locker, it was not properly
categorized, it should have been placed into evidence, and that Sgt wanted
formal charges brought against Jailer for this violation. Sgt said it, "Pissed
me off!" In his opinion, Sgt was going to try to make him and his crew look
bad so his (Sgt crew didn't look as bad. Sgt had conversations with
his jail staff stating this was "Bullshit." Sgt categorized his comments as
"venting."
o Sgt conduct of "venting" with subordinates regarding Sgt
supervisory performance is unbecoming conduct as a member/supervisor of the Renton
Police Department.
o Sgt has brought discredit to the Renton Police Department by "venting" to
subordinate employees which brought discredit to Sgt
o Bringing discredit upon Sgt impaired the operation and efficiency ofthe
Renton Jail.
Allegation #3 Violation of General Order 26.1.1 YY Ethics
Members of the Police Department shall not conspire or knowingly engage in any activity which
deprives any person of their civil rights, due process, equal opportunity for employment,
advancement, job opportunities, or any constitutionally or statutory guaranteed right. No
member of the Police Department shall disseminate confidential police-related information to
any unauthorized person for any purpose.
Finding: Sustained
o Sgt has conspired by his words and/or actions and engaged in activities which
have affected the conduct of subordinates in the Renton Jail.
o Sgt takes every opportunity to find fault with Sgt and tells Manager
Bartley in person, by telephone or email, or tells anyone who will listen to him.
o Sgt said in his interviews that his words or actions have created discredit to Sgt
character.
Allegation #4 Violation Auxiliary Services Standard Operating Procedure 038
employee/Inmate Fraternization.
Jailers will not accept nor solicit any items, money, service or consideration from any inmate,
inmate's family, friends of an inmate, or solicit a reward from any bondsman or agency.
Additionally, jailers will not recommend or direct an inmate toward any specific bondsman,
attorney or other inmate agency.
(
Finding: Sustained
o Sgt said he had talked with inmate regarding Sgt
performance.
o Sgt did tell inmate to write a letter to the Jail Commander regarding
Sgt
o Sgt told inmate if he had a problem to put it on paper.
o Sgt denied in his first interview that he said Sgt could not make a
decision or was indecisive. He may have said, "Well if he can't make a decision, I'm just
going to give you April 1st for a release date." Sgt said inmate was
pissed at Sgt and he told inmate "Hey if you want to file a beef, file a
beef. The same as we tell inmates when they come in that want to complain about an
officer."
o Sgt said he did not have any discussion.s with any other jail staff, nor did he
direct any other member of the jail staff, to make sure inmate wrote the letter.
o Jailer said in his interview that he had a conversation with inmate and
said, "If you have a grievance or whatever with the other sergeant go ahead and write it
and we'll go ahead and make sure it gets to the Jail Commander. Sgt said write
a letter."
o When Jailer was asked if he has ever heard any member of the jail staff ask or
solicit any person or inmate to write a letter about the performance of any member of
the jail staff he replied, "Yes, it was about Sgt
o Jailer was asked, "Were you directed by any member of the jail staff to talk to
inmate regarding a letter to the Jail Commander?" Jailer said, "Sgt
told if he wants to write a letter, go ahead and write Commander
Wilcox a letter reporting what happened during the conversation between him
( and Sgt referencing the release dates."
o Sgt told Jailer to tell inmate to write a letter as Sgt
can't do anything about the release dates given to him by Sgt Inmate
needs to write a letter.
o Jailer said to inmate "If you write a letter, we would make sure it gets
up to Commander Wilcox."
o Jailer said he did not know, nor was he told, what inmate was to put
into the letter, as he was not part of the original conversation. He knew inmate
was supposed to write a letter but did not know if he did or not.
o During Sgt second interview, he was asked if he had a conversation with
inmate regarding Sgt performance as a supervisor. Sgt
said, "Yeah, but it was one-sided. He was upset with Sgt he had many nice
things to say about sarcastically."
o Sgt told inmate if he's got a beef to file with Sgt how to file
a complaint.
(
o I asked "Did you specifically say anything about Sgt performance to
Sgt said, "No. I {Sgt said, 'he ( said he's (Sgt
an idiot, he's (Sgt incompetent and somebody should be told
about him (Sgt I (Sgt said if you want to say he's (Sgt an
idiot and he's incompetent and he doesn't know what he's doing, put it on a letter." I
asked if he (Sgt ever used the words Sgt is incompetent, cannot
make a decision, or is indecisive to inmate and he replied, "No."
o Sgt was asked if he had ever used the words that Sgt is incompetent,
cannot make a decision, or was indecisive to members of the jail staff who are
subordinate to Sgt and he replied, "Yeah, probably."
o Sgt was asked when he talked to inmate about his frustration getting
his release date, did he use the words that Sgt cannot make a decision and he
replied, "No. Well, I might have. He (Sgt gave him ( four different
dates. I might have said, 'Well, if Sgt not going to make a decision, I'll make
it.' I gave him April1
51
as a release date."
o Sgt did say that inmate had asked him for a release date prior and he
did not give him a release date at that time. He told him to wait until it got closer to the
end of his commitment.
Allegation #5 General Order 1.3 Use of Force Authorization
Use of Force- Members shall use a reasonable amount of force necessary to accomplish the
arrest, overcome perceived resistance to arrest, defend themselves or others from harm or to
control a situation. Members shall use a reasonable amount of force necessary to accomplish the
arrest, overcome perceived resistance to arrest, defend themselves or others from harm or to
control a situation. The degree afforce used should be in direct relationship to the amount of
resistance perceived by the member, or the imminent threat the person poses to the member or
others. Members will use only the force necessary to accomplish lawful objectives.
Finding: Sustained
BAC room video 12-29-08 Use of Force Report 08-14627
DUI suspect handcuffed and sitting on DUI suspect sitting on bench non-
bench not causing problems. threatening.
Sgt enters BAC room, walks out Nothing noted on first pass through
to P-2, reenters and goes into the jail
area.
Sgt reenters the BAC room and Sgt said he entered the BAC room
says something to Officer Ashbaugh. and asked Officer Ashbaugh if she was
going to book the suspect.
Sgt starts talking to the suspect. Sgt said that the suspect mumbled
something to him. He asked him what he
said and the suspect stated he had AIDS.
Sgt with his hands in his pockets, Sgt said the suspect was not
walks over and sits next to the suspect on presenting a threat so he sat next to him on
the bench and starts talking to the suspect. the.bench to speak to him.
Suspect leans forward and appears to be Sgt said the suspect began to slide
agitated with his conversation and body towards him and he told the suspect not to
movements. touch him.
Sgt leans away from the suspect.
Suspect leans back and to his left and with
his free right hand places a finger in his
mouth.
Suspect removes his finger from his mouth
and extends his right arm/hand towards Sgt

Sgt took hold of the suspect's Sgt took hold of the suspect's
right index finger and performed a counter right index finger and performed a counter
joint bending the finger back towards his joint bending the finger back towards his
arm. arm.
Officer Ashbaugh sees the incident Sgt does not mention Officer
occurring and walks to the left side ofthe Ashbaugh actions.
suspect as Sgt is applying force.
Sgt is applying pressure to the Sgt said that as he was applying
suspects finger/hand/arm and is talking to force he was telling the suspect his
the suspect at the same time. behavior was unacceptable and that he
needed to stop and calm down.
Sgt releases the suspects hand/arm Officer Ashbaugh notified the jail staff that
and exits the BAC room. the suspect was ready to be booked.
The suspect was booked without further
incident.
S-1 Cell video 12-30-08 Use of Force Report 08-14688
Jailer Hoopii enters S-1 cell escorting a Sgt received a call over the jail
male inmate un-restrained and non- radio that a fight had occurred in cell B-6.
threatening. He responds to the jail from the jail
sergeant's office.
Jailer Hoopii seats the inmate on the floor Sgt enters S-1 putting on latex
with his back against the walL Jailer Hoopii gloves stating that the inmate was yelling
is talking to the inmate. Inmate appears to at Jailer Hoopii about a towel.
be non-threatening sitting on the floor.
Sgt quickly/aggressively walks Sgt entered the cell and told the
towards the seated inmate extending his inmate to stop yelling and to shut up, that
right arm towards the inmate and is saying they needed to figure out what had
something to him. happened and he needed to calm down.
Sgt is bent over at the waist and Sgt said he was in front of the
has his right arm extended with pointed inmate asking him if he understood. When
fingers within inches of the inmates face the inmate told him "No" he told the
(
and is saying something to the inmate. inmate to shut up and listen to what he was
telling him.
Jailer Dement enters the cell and is standing
back along with Jailer Hoopii.
Sgt places his hand closer to the
inmates face and the inmate's moves his
head back away from Sgt hand.
The inmate spit blood from his cut lip Sgt said as he was explaining to
striking Sgt in the face. the inmate that they would review what
happened when the inmate spit blood from
his cut lip striking Sgt in the face.
S gt grabs the inmates head and Sgt said after the inmate spit at
body and forces him to the left onto the jail him he immediately turned the inmates
floor. face away from him and forced him to lie
flat on his stomach.
Sgt is on the inmates back, Jailer Sgt said Jailers Hoopii and
Hoopii is attempting to pull the inmates Dement assisted in controlling the
right arm from under his body, and Jailer inmate's body.
Dement is controlling the inmates feet.
Sgt is on the inmates back with his Sgt said he applied pressure using
hands near the inmates head. his knuckle to get the inmate to stop
resisting and trying to spit on him.
Inmate is handcuffed and still lying on his Inmate complied with Sgt
stomach. commands and was handcuffed.
Sgt exits S-1 and returns with the Inmate was placed into the "WRAP" with
"WRAP" and spit shield. a spit shield over his face.
Sgt leaves the cell to wash the Jailer Hoopii stated Sgt had blood
blood off his face. on his face. Sgt leaves the cell to
wash the blood off his face.
RFD Aid unit enters S-1 cell to treat the RFD Aid said the inmate needs to be
inmate for the bloody lip he received from transported to VMC for stitches.
the altercation with another inmate in B-6
cell.
Inmate did not cause any problems when he
was being treated by RFD. Jailer Hoopii
was standing in the cell at the time. Inmate
was still in the "WRAP" with the spit shield
removed.
Sgt enters the cell and says Sgt said he entered the cell and
something to the inmate. Also in the cell is asked the inmate if he intentionally spit
Officer Bruner. into his face.
Inmate was removed from the "WRAP" by
Jailer Hoopii.
Inmate was escorted out of the cell by The inmate was transported to VMC for
Officer Bruner. medical treatment for the laceration to his
lip. Sgt was treated at VMC for
I blood exposure.
o Both Use of Force incidents show the inmates were compliant, with no aggressive
actions toward any member of the jail staff, until Sgt entered the area. Sgt
appears to have instigated both applications of forces by his words and/or
conduct.
o Use of Force incident 08-14688 is unwarranted. Jailer Hoopii escorted an inmate, who
had just been in a physical fight, without any restraints and was non-aggressive towards
any jail staff member.
o Sgt aggressive actions initiated the inmate to respond. This Use of Force
incident should not have happened.
o Sgt Use of Force report was not documented as it was recorded in the jail
video.
o Use of Force incident 08-14627. The Jail staff was aware that a DUI suspect was being
brought to the jail for processing and that he had resisted arrest on the street. When
the DUI suspect entered the BAC room he was calm and non-aggressive. Sgt sat
next to the DUI suspect and started talking to him. The DUI suspect reacted to what Sgt
said to him. Sgt had to use force to control the DUI suspect's free hand
from touching him.
Allegation #6 General Order 26.1.1 TT Code of Conduct and Appearance, Truthfulness.
Upon the order of the Chief of Police, the Chief's designate, or a superior officer, members of the
Police Department shall fully and truthfully answer all questions specifically directed, and
narrowly relating to the performance of official duties, or fitness for office, which may be asked
of them.
Questions asked during the two official interviews were narrowly focused for specific answers.
During both interviews Sgt gave half-truths to the questions asked. When Sgt
was asked if he ever asked or solicited a letter from inmate he replied, "I told if
he had a complaint he needed to put it in writing." When asked what the complaint was he
replied, " not getting a solid release date from Sgt Sgt was asked,
"Was that his ( only complaint? Were there other work performance related
complaints that he ( had?" Sgt replied, "No, pretty much with it was
just his release date thing. That's the only complaint he voiced to me." I asked if Sgt had
talked to any other jail staff regarding the letter and he replied, "No, I didn't direct anybody to
make sure he did it, and like I said, I didn't know he actually did it."
During an interview with Jailer the question was asked, "Were you directed by any
member of the jail staff to talk to inmate regarding a letter to the Jail Commander?"
Jailer said, "Well Sgt asked, well told me to go ahead and tell if he
wants to write a letter go ahead and write you (Commander Wilcox) a letter what happened
about the conversation between him and Sgt about the release dates." Jailer
said he never went in and asked or told inmate to write a letter. He said "Sgt
told he {Sgt could not do anything about it so needs to write a letter
and we'll make sure it gets to Commander Wilcox." Jailer also said the he knew that
inmate was supposed to write a letter but he was unaware if a letter was written or
not. When he was asked if there were any other members of the jail staff aware of this incident
he replied, "I can't say. It was just me and Sgt that's what I know."
Allegation #7 General Order 26.1.1Q Insubordination
Members of the Police Department shall promptly obey any lawful orders of a superior officer.
This will include orders relayed from a superior officer by an officer of the same or lesser rank.
Findings: Sustained
o Sgt knowingly and willfully disobeyed a direct order given by Commander
Karlewicz not to discuss this internal investigation with any person in the police
department except for his RPOG representative.
o Sgt talked in-depth with Commander after his first interview.
o Sgt talked about this internal investigation to his subordinate jail staff members,
Jailers and
o Sgt attempted to talk with Manager Bartley and Sgt , but they declined to
discuss the investigation.
o Sgt said he understood the order given by Commander Karlewicz not to discuss
the internal investigation with any member of the department except his RPOG
representative.
i
\
POLICE DEPARTMENT
M E M 0 R A N D U M
DATE: July 15, 2009
TO: Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police
FROM: Clark Wilcox, Commander Auxiliary Servic.es Division
Discipline Recommendation- CO 03-09 SUBJECT:
Sgt has violated the trust given to him as a supervisor. Sgt made poor
choices by his words and actions. Sgt has not set the example as required by
department policy as a supervisor and Field Training Sergeant. Upon completion of this
investigation the facts have revealed that Sgt is not performing his duties
as a supervisor to the standards of the Renton Police Department.
Discipline Recommendation:
1. Reduced in rank from Jail Sergeant to Jailer.
Sgt advised me on, or about, March 31, 2009 that he is a victim of
harassment in the work place by Sgt
Sgt said he was approached by inmate trustee who told
Sgt he should watch his back from the other sergeant (Sgt and
the officers who work for Sgt
Sgt told inmate that Sgt was indecisive, could not make
decisions and was a poor supervisor.
Sgt said he does not have problems with subordinate jail staff members
under his direct supervision.
The harassment is coming from subordinates who are direct reports to Sgt
Sgt said he has not brought up the issue of harassment in the work place
prior, as he did not want to cause problems.
Sgt has been trained in the City of Renton's Harassment policy and advises
his subordinates of the Harassment policy when he completes annual evaluations.
Sgt said in his first interview that he knew the harassment policy and
described its content as, "any uncomfortable workplace condition created by either
unwanted comments, touching, or performance."
Sgt said in his second interview, "Harassment is defined in the workplace as
creating an uncomfortable environment, negative unwanted talking, touching and
creating a hostile work environment."
(
(
Kevin Milosevich, Chief of .t vlice
Page 2 of2
July 15, 2009
EHD Officer was interviewed as a witness. During his interview, EHD
Officer said he knowledge regarding harassment in the work place
instigated by Sgt and his squad.
EHD Officer said he believes he has been a victim of harassment in the work
place also.
EHD Officer believes the retaliation comes from Jailer and
Sgt working together.
EHD Officer feels that does not go the way Jailer or Sgt
wants it to go, then they tend to work together and retaliate.
EHD Officer felt he was retaliated against for requesting that the
Transport Officer position be posted for jail staff members to apply for.
EHD Officer said if you cross or disagree with Sgt he will retaliate
in one way or another or just talk down about you.
Sgt was appointed as a supervisor on February 16, 2001. He has had the
training to be an effective supervisor in the jail.
Sgt has knowledge of department rules/regulations and City policies. Sgt
is the FTO Jail Sergeant.
Sgt is charged with setting an example for subordinates to follow and
adhere to department rules/regulations and City polices.
This investigation has shown Sgt is not performing the duties as a
supervisor, as all of the alleged allegations are SUSTAINED.
f: \7-13-09 recommendation memo co 03-09 .doc
(
(
POLICE DEPARTMENT
M E M 0 R A N D U M
DATE: September 14, 2009
TO: Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police
FROM: Tim Troxel, Deputy Police Chief
SUBJEC Discipline Recommendation I C0-0309
Jail Sergeant
On Wednesday August 12, at 1300 hours I spoke in-person with Sergeant
in police conference room B. With him as a guild representative was Officer Jim
Gould. Sergeant came prepared with a six-page narrative of talking
points/mitigating circumstances regarding this investigation. That document is attached.
I will include parts of this information under each allegation. Sergeant
information will be italicized. I will provide rebuttal information that will be underlined.
ALLEGATION #1
Renton Municipal Policy 300-03. Harassment- It is the policy of the City of Renton to
maintain a work environment which is free of harassment based upon race, color, age,
religion, sex, or national origin. This policy is not limited in application to harassment
between supervisors and subordinates, but also includes harassment between co-
workers.
The investigation revealed that Sergeant participated in and allowed
derogatory and negative conversations to take place regarding Sergeant
supervisory style and/or work performance. admitted to as much. The
specific event that was documented in this investigation had to do with an incident
where recovered some plastic baggies from Jailer locker that had
been in the property of an inmate and may have contained illegal narcotics. Jailer
from crew, had removed them from the inmate's property after they
were placed there by a jailer on crew. wrote up the incident
as if had taken improper action and was storing baggies containing narcotics in
his locker.
Sergeant became upset at this chain of events and felt that what
did was "bullshit". It was out of this incident that "vented" generally about
work performance.
\
Chief of Police Kevin Milosevicn
Page 2 of8
September 14, 2009
In my meeting with Sergeant he said that there was only one specific
incident confirmed during this investigation related to his "venting". It was in regards
to the incident listed above where Sergeant recovered some inmate
property I baggies which may have contained narcotics. had vented to
subordinates in the jail that handling of the incident was "bullshit".
Information uncovered during the investigation convinces me that was
involved in on-going venting to subordinates regarding performance and
supervisory style. Sgt point is well-taken that just one specific incident was
confirmed by the investigation. Although just one specific event was documented,
negative conversations took place in which was involved and encouraged.
For a sustained finding on this Harassment allegation, the victim ( has to
be a member of a protected class. is not a member of a protected class
and thus is the subject and focus of derogatory remarks, not harassment.
Finding: Unfounded
ALLEGATION #2
General Order 26.1.1.11.8. Unbecoming Conduct- Members of the Police Department
shall conduct themselves at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to
reflect most favorably on the Department. Unbecoming conduct shall include that
which brings the Department into disrepute or reflects discredit upon the individual as
a member of the Police Department, or that which impairs the operation or efficiency
of the Department or the individual.
The investigation revealed that Sergeant participated and allowed
derogatory and negative conversations directed towards Sgt. During
an interview with Commander Wilcox, Sgt. was asked, "Have your
actions or words ever worked in a manner to discredit Sgt. with any
other city employee?" answered, "Yes". He also admits to venting to
subordinate jail staff about the "baggie" incident noted above.
again pointed out as in Allegation #1 that just one specific incident or
event was confirmed during this investigation. had vented to
subordinates in the jail that handling of the incident was "bullshit".
Chief of Police Kevin Milosevich
Page 3 of8
September 14, 2009
(
Information uncovered during the investigation convinces me that was
involved in on-going venting to subordinates regarding Sgt.
performance and supervisory style. This brought discredit upon based
upon what was said about him, and undermined his authority and reputation.
This activity brought discredit upon for venting to subordinates.
Finding: Sustained
ALLEGATION #3
General Order 26.1.1.11.YY. Ethics - Members of the Police Department shall not
conspire or knowingly engage in any activity which deprives any person of their civil
rights, due process, equal opportunity for employment, advancement, job
opportunities, or any constitutionally or statutorily guaranteed right. No member of
th':! police department shall disseminate confidential police-related information to any
unauthorized person for any purpose.
The investigation revealed that Sgt. conspired by his words or actions
and engaged in activities which have affected the opinions and conduct of
subordinates in the Renton Jail. Sgt. took many opportunities to find
fault with Sgt and talked about those faults with subordinate jail staff.
told me, that he vented to subordinate personnel about He
did not believe his actions or words to subordinate officers brought discredit upon
Sgt.
I am convinced that vented to subordinate jail staff about
performance and his alleged inability to make a decision. admits in
interview #1 that he had conversations with other city employees regarding his
displeasure with Sgt (Interview #1, page 25). On page 26 of the same
interview answered that, "Now I talked to his staff about him because
they voiced their displeasure." He adds that he believed that was an
ineffective supervisor, "because he won't make a decision."
Finding: Sustained
(
(
Chief of Police Kevin Milosevicn
Page 4 of 8
September 14, 2009
ALLEGATION #4
(
Auxiliary Services Division Standard Operating Procedure #038. Employee/ Inmate
Fraternization- Jailers will not accept nor solicit any items, money, service or
consideration from any inmate, inmate's family, friends of an inmate, or solicit a
reward from any bondsman or agency. Additionally, jailers will not recommend or
direct and inmate toward any specific bondsman, attorney or other inmate agency.
The investigation revealed that Sergeant had conversations with Trustee
about performance. The began when Trustee
was apparently frustrated with in not giving a hard
release date. and spoke in the jail kitchen area. After
gave a hard-release date to he advised that if he { had
a complaint against he needed to put it in writing. The hard date that
gave to included extra gifted time (more than 7 days), not
usually given without approval of the Jail Commander. said that
"typically, yeah" he would have gotten prior approval. In this case, he did not get
approval. When asked, said, "There's no reason, I just didn't. I didn't
think anything of it."
Sometime after and had their conversation in the jail kitchen,
mentioned to Jailer that needed to write a letter if he
had a complaint against Shortly after, made contact with
and advised the same; if he had a complaint he needed to put it in
writing. "If you write a letter, we will make sure it gets up to Commander
Wilcox."
claimed that he did not solicit a letter from Trustee reference
performance. points out that during theinterview with Jailer
he appears to be confused about the letter was potentially
going to write. Later in the interview then clears up any confusion by
saying no one asked him to solicit a letter from
I believe had a conversation with regarding
performance. The performance complaints may have been brought up by
but cultivated the conversations and encouraged to
write a letter. After that conversation, spoke with who at some
point went and made contact with again telling him that if he wrote a
letter, "they" would make sure it got to Commander Wilcox. I believe this
reference to "they" meant or
(
(
Chief of Police Kevin Milosevich
Page 5 of 8
September 14, 2009
These conversations along with the additional, unapproved gifted time given to
by convinces me that the additional gifted time would be
granted, if wrote a letter about . This is a quid pro quo or,
something for something agreement. This violates the above written Auxiliary
Services S.O.P.
Finding: Sustained
ALLEGATION #5
General Order 1.3.1. Use of Force Authorization- Members shall use a reasonable
amount of force necessary to accomplish the arrest, overcome perceived resistance to
arrest, defend themselves or others from harm or to control a situation. The degree of
force used shall be in direct relationship to amount of resistance perceived by the
member, or the imminent threat the person poses to the member or others. Members
will use only the force necessary to accomplish lawful objectives.
The investigation focused on two {2) uses of force in the jail where Sgt.
became involved. Both incidents are documented with Use of Force reports and
video (no audio) from the jail system. In the first instance on December 29,
2008, Officer Ashbaugh was processing a DUI arrestee in the BAC room. On
video, enters the BAC room and speaks with Ashbaugh, then ends up
sitting next to the arrestee on the BAC bench. Within seconds, the suspect puts
his fingers in his own mouth then attempts to place those wet fingers on some
part of . controls the subject's hand I arm with soft-empty hand
techniques.
In the second use of force on December 30, 2008, Jailer Hoopii is dealing with an
inmate who had allegedly been assaulted by another inmate. As the subject
inmate is seated on the floor in the padded cell, Jailer Hoopii is talking with the
inmate. briskly enters the room and immediately bends over and gets in
the personal space of the inmate, pointing his finger within inches of the
inmate's face. Within a few seconds the inmate spits at . , Hoopii
and Jailer Dement push over the subject and restrain him, eventually placing him
in The Wrap.
claims that in both instances he used the appropriate amount of force,
completed accurate Use of Force reports that were then approved up the chain of
command. In event #2, he admits to getting in the face of the inmate in the
(
(
Chief of Police Kevin Milosevich
Page 6 of 8
September 14, 2009
padded cell. The inmate spits at which allegedly included blood in the
saliva. comment during our discussion was, "did I get too close (to the
inmate)? Lesson learned. Did I place myself in harm? Maybe, but he wasn't a
threat."
I agree that the Use of Force reports are accurate. However, I believe
instigated this second use of force by getting too close to the seated inmate. It
appears the inmate reacted to invading his personal space and getting in
his face. admits the same; "lesson learned". This action of instigating a
reaction by the inmate does not violate the letter of the policy as written above.
However, it does fall under our Unbecoming Conduct policy.
Finding: Not-Sustained on Use of Force, Sustained on Unbecoming Conduct
ALLEGATION #6
General Order 26.1.1.11.TT. Truthfulness- Upon the order of the Chief of Police, the
Chief's designate, or a superior officer, members of the Police Department shall fully
and truthfully answer all questions specifically directed, and narrowly relating to the
performance of official duties, or fitness for office, which may be asked of them.
The investigation revealed that Sergeant had a conversation with inmate
I trustee in the jail kitchen area. They discussed frustration
with Sergeant not giving a specific release date. They
informally discussed performance and as said in his
interviews, he did not say words to describe performance; he just
used the words that had used. told that if he had a
complaint about he needed to put it in writing. During their
discussion, gave a release date to one that included more
gifted time than normal and that which would normally trigger notification to
and approval by the jail commander. This was not done and did not have
a reason for not following his previous practice. Sometime after the I
conversation, spoke to and told him h.ow to file a
colT) plaint.
In letter of complaint, he writes that ( would give him
a release date of Aprill, lf he wrote a letter to you (Commander Wilcox) telling,
Chief of Police Kevin Milosevich
Page 7 of8
September 14, 2009
"that Sergeant was incompitant (sp) and indecisive ... " claims
that another officer ( was in the kitchen area at the time and told him
what he { "was to put in the letter and not to seal it so they could read
it". Additionally, shortly after and spoke, and Jailer
spoke and then made contact with
Sgt admits to telling several times the process to file a
complaint. main issues had to do with not giving a
solid answer on a release date. He denies that he ordered or directed a
subordinate ( to talk to trustee to write a letter of complaint
against
This order of conversations and requests I encouragement for to write a
letter is suspicious. The fact that was given more than the normal range
of gifted time, not approved by command also raises concerns. I believe a letter
was solicited by a follow-up request and visit was accomplished by
and the additional gifted time was in anticipation of a letter being
written by I believe was not truthful during the interviews with
Commanders Karlewicz and Wilcox.
Finding: Sustained
ALLEGATION #7
General Order 26.1.1.11.TT. Insubordination - Members of the Police Department shall
promptly obey any lawful orders of a superior officer. This will include orders relayed
from a superior officer by an officer of the same or lesser rank.
The investigation revealed that Sgt knowingly disobeyed a direct order
given by Commander Karlewicz to not discuss this investigation with any person
in the police department except his guild representative. admitted to
talking with numerous department members about the investigation after
Karlewicz had given him a gag order.
Sergeant had no rebuttal for this allegation. He knew the gag order was
in place and still violated the order. He added that he had no excuse for his
(
Chief of Police Kevin Milosevich
Page 8 of 8
September 14, 2009
(
actions and takes full responsibility. He was upset following the initial interview
with Karlewicz and that was his reason for talking with others about the
investigation.
Commander Karlewicz gave Sergeant a gag order during interview #1 on
April 23, 2009. After the interview Sergeant spoke with numerous
department members about the allegations and the investigation in direct
violation of the gag order.
Finding: Sustained
Discipline Recommendation: Six (6} month reduction in rank from Sergeant to Jailer
This investigation showed a very troubling pattern of behavior by Sergeant
Sustained allegations of Unbecoming Conduct, Ethics, Violation of ASD SOP,
Truthfulness and Insubordination are very concerning, especially when considering they
involve a Jail Sergeant.
Sergeant in his Pre-Loudermill hearing with me attempted to downplay his
actions at every turn.
Unbecoming Conduct- just one confirmed event.
Ethics- words and actions did not rise to the level of an ethics violation.
ASD S.O.P. -Employee I Inmate Fraternization- did not solicit letter, even though
there was more gifted time promised than usual and without command
notification and approval. A quid pro quo situation.
Truthfulness- denies that he ordered or directed Jailer to talk to Inmate
about writing a letter about performance.
Insubordination- for this allegation he accepted responsibility.
I am of the opinion that department members put in leadership positions have
demonstrated an ability to know what to do at every turn. I believe knows the
right course of action but has chosen not to take that course. actions led to
the above sustained violations of city policy, standard operating procedure and general
orders. The discipline recommendation is supported by these violations.
Date: August 2, 2009
To: DeputyChiefTroxef
From: Sergeant
Subject: Rebuttal to allegations and findings of
This is tcirespondto the internalinvestigationlwas given onJuJy 27,2009, concerning allegations of:
Harassment, Unpecoming Conduct, Ethics; Fraternization, Use of Force, Code of ..
Conduct and Appearance, Truthfulness, and .Insubordination.
T q add reS> a r Wll r ;.,ply. to one
HO ;ssment: was s u,tai ned that I a uqw nlydJ a rid
that l just venting when I talked negatively about Sgt. to Manager
Bartley.
,.
None of my actions were shown to affectSgt. work performanceor create an intimidating,
hostile or offensive environment. When answering questionsthat.Commander V\lilcoxwasasking,.
Sgt. stated that he and r do have clashes; hcmever prior to .the conversation with
. . . - . ' . - . ; : . :
Trustee had never voiced a concern. He stated "I think it all came to a head back in
November with that evidence and baggie incident. I it all cal11e to pretty
much slap me in the face and otherthings you know; looking, looking. back and Ican'treally think of
an incident in particular but you know the res beefllikepossiblepeaks and and uh glances but the big
. '.. . . . .. . . . -. .
one came in November when I, when! did what Uelt was th.e rightthing to do." ldidvclice my
' ' - - ' ' j. ,_, '.
displeasure for this one (1) i.nciclentto Manager Bartley and Officer the parties involved at the
time. Once the incident was handled by the anissue and not
discussed again. This is. only Sgt. to verify this allegation. The bnly
reason Sgt. . felt harassed in the workplace due to a he
Trustee When Commimder Wilc;ox ho\tv do you what cio you. make your
. ' ',. . . ' ... . .
work environment betterat this time? Sgt. answered by that we will always have an
' . . . '' .-.. .. .
"A" and "B" side, thatwe should get along better and some procecjural issues. When Commander
Wilcox said I'm talking about your working relations with other staffmernber$ in the jaiL Sgt.
. ' . . ' __- ' . - ': . ' ',.. -
stated, "Oh. I don't know, I've neverreally thought about it in particular I Again
showing that the only reasonthat Sgt: f feels this way is C!Je to told
. - . i - . : ' ' ' ' ,' - ., -.. ': - . ' - ,' .. ' - . -. . . . . " . ' . . _-_ : . ' '
him. My actions had no affect on Sgt. in regards to creating a work
environment. In regards to speaking to Manager Bartley, stated in #2;
that these are acceptable as she was the d'irect supervisorto both of them.
(
(
Unbecoming collduct: .Cit was I brought discredit to Sgt; and impaired the
'-_::- . .'. -. . .
operation and efficiency .of the Renton Jail.
. . . . . . . ..
When asked have. your actions or words worked in a manner to discredit Sgt .. with any
other City employee? I answered "Yes." I also stated that it was with Manager Bartley, my boss.
In regards to the plastic baggie incident that were found in an inmate,s property. They contained no
contraband,theywere simply sm'all. clear baggies that might at onetime contained contraband,.
. ' I ' . '- ' . ,. .
. . .
however did not at the time of discovery. I toJd Officer to place the baggies in his locker and to
show the officers involved 1,11hen they came back to work; At time Officer and were
supposedto go back in and work withthegraveyardcrewon';JB
1
to issues thatwere
identified on a memo sehtto. Manager Bartley on 18, 2008, Sgt was told thatthe
., ,_ . ... ',' ... , ,-.- - ' . . . .
baggies were in Officers lc)cker and he recovered them. He then called Manager Bartley who
told him to hold onto them until she could loqk at them. He instead pulled a case andentered them
into evidence. the evidence and presented them to Chief ..
Milosevich. Upon the Chiefs recommendation the case Wi35 removed from. the system and no further
action was required, because no was in the baggies. J view . .ed this as a blatant slight to
Officer and myself to show that we made ami stake in light ofthe memo, especially since he VIlas
told by Manager. Bartley that she wanted. to look at the baggies before 'he did anything. When I was
asked "So whatwas the gist of the you had with other Jailers regarding that and
regarding your displeasure with attempting to do thatr I stated "That it was bullshit.
11
This
statement was the "Gist" of conversations, that the allegations were Bullshit.
My "Venting" was notregardingSgt. sperformance to my subordinates. The statement that
it was Bullshit was in reference to the allegations that he had hlade and was the "Gist" of the
conversations.
I stated that I would discuss Sgt. s performancewith Manager Bartley. CommanderWilcox
stated that these actions are acceptable as she was the direct supervisor to both. of them.
I do not feel that by stating_ I felt-that accusations brought against one of my subordinates .andI by
Sgt. to be have brought discredit the Police .
. . ,' . . . - --- ... ' ' '
I do not feel that my actions or words.to subordinate officers have brought discredit to Sgt.
. . . . - . .
Ethics: I do not feel that I have conspired 6ymy words and/or actions in activities that have affected
the conduct ofsubordinates in theRentonJail. I contend that Sgt. s actions .are what the
jail staff forms their opinion of him byr as was stated by his subordinates.
(
Officer was asked during his interview by Commander. Wilcox, "Do you believe that Sgt.
is an ineffectivesupervisor?u His replywas, ''!think there's room for. improvement. I don't think
anybody I have very high and my idea of supervision is different than, thanwhat
seen here because I come from the private.sector and. was tau'ght how to be a supervisor; I think Sgt.
is very sincere. I think he wor;ks hard. I think he needs some attention thqugh to make
sure that he meets deadlines and, and he could bemore effective." This statement was made based
on Officers pi I at's own opinion of Officer reportsto Sgt.
When Officer was asked by Wilcox ;,Do you believeth at Sgt. is an
ineffective. supervisor?" His reply was yes, sir. Urn, I care a loiaboutSgt.
but I, there's some things that he and I dont see eye to eye about. Um, I just, I feel that
Um," Commander Wilcox interrupted and asked "Is it a difference of opinion, of direction,
difference of enforcing policies, or just not enforcihg policies?". Officer with "No. I
feel that uh, J feel that there's certain things that you know, that should be dealtwithon a more
regular basis down there that aren't, Uh, you know when, you know when we get into the, he and I
. . ' . . I
get in arguments when we get into differences, or you know making sure thing{are ordered and, you
know, yes, his ideas of priorities is what is to take care, you taking care. of and when ifs to be taken
. ' ' . I' . '
care and when you work three days on and you're three days off, it may slip through the cracks, then
consequently we end up not getting it. Officer goes on to describe different situations
that caused him to form his opinion, however he formed his opinion based on [lis own interactions
with Sgt. and not based on anything fdid or said. Officer also Sgt.

When Officer was asked by Commander Wilcox "Do yoU believe that Sgt. is an
ineffective supervisor?" Officer replied; "He's effective ih. what.he's .doing right now. In what
he's doing right now." Officer reports to me. His comments reflect that! do not affectin any
way how my subordinates viewSgt and that based on the other two (2) officers interviewed
that the jail staff baie their opinions on personal interactions vvith Sgt ..
The opinion that Commander Wilcox statedi that! take every opportunity to find fault with Sgt.
and tell Manager Bartley in person, by telephone or email, or that I tell anyone who will
listen, is completely without merit. I did state that I would talk to Manager Bartley about Sgt.
however not at every opportunity. The email correspondence that were submitted with this
. '. - . .
investigation show that in. the case of the November is, 2008 incident, that I identified a problem as a
training. issue and because I was responsible fortraining wanted to fix the. issue. !took full
responsibility for thetraining,issues with stated on that memo thatitwas a
training issue.. I donot know howthe other included iQ the have any
relevance to any oft he allegations that I was charged ,with, do JJcit show ahy negative
', :: ,_-- .L.- :\'< .. : __._, " ,.. '' - '' -r,, ',
comments by myself or:. Manager Be1rtley about Sgt.
It was stated "Sgt. said in t-1is that hiswords or actions have created d.iscredit to
Sgt. character." In no way did I make this statement. The was "Okay. Do you.
believe your words, actions, or conduct as a supervisor can sway subofdinates'thoughts or conduct
towards other members of the department?'; My reply was "Thoughts? Yes.;; Then) was "Do
you believe that your actions or conduct also swaytho!:;e?" My reply was "Yes;" I do. believe that
' . ' -' .- .
my actions and conduct could sway subordinates thoughts towards other department members,
however as pointed out in the statements given by other jail stafftheir opinion was not that of mine.
They gave totally different reasons for their opinion of Sgt. than I diclthey based their own
dealings with him. I stated thati feel Sgt. is ineffective because. he will not makea
decision.
I did not solicit Trustee to write. a letter in .regacdstoSgt, performance, What I
' -
did was in compliancewith department policy in regardsto complaints.
' . - . . . : . . . '
I did speak with Trustee regarding Sgt: and good time.
. - . ' . . __
::. . .- .: .: ' . : -
I did explain to Trustee that Jf.he had a complalnt about Sgt. that he could write .a.
letter and voice,his complaint on that letter addressed to Commander Wilcox.
That Officer in to the in conversation stated that if Trustee had a complaint to.
write a letter. knew what complaint was because prior to speaking
with me he had spoken to Officer who referred him to me.
When asked "Have you ever requested or solicited a letter frorn any person or inmate regarding
another member of the jail staff, or jail member's performance?" Officer answered "Yeah,
Sgt. CommanderWilcoxthen asked "Have you ev.ersolicited a letter from any person or
inmate regarding another jail. member's performance?" Officer replied "No. T,he only thing I
- ' , I ' - -
don't understand .._--. -.--'--c.--- I said go ahead and write your letter and we'll make sure it
gets up to Commander Wilcox?" asked''Okay, so you did not solicit a
letter ... ?" Replied \\Solicit? Uh" Commander Wilcox then explained "Go up to him and .
say, I need you to writea this letter," Officer No, no, no, no, no, no." So.
CommanderWilcox the question again that ''Do you have knowledge, of any member of the
Renton Jail staff sol.idting a letterJromany inmate regarding the performance of any member of the
< '- -- ' '.: :.. . -,. . . . .
Renton Jail staff?" Officer replied
When asked by Commander. Wilcox "Have you ever been directed by a supervisor or any other jail ..
. . -. .. . ;
staff member to solicit from. any Inmate ariywritten documentation regarding any department
member's performance?" Officer said "No."
Use of Force: In regards to the use offorce allegations, Ifeelthat I operated within the department
policy for use of force applications and process for repoFting thesame. My Use. bfforce reports that
were criticized in this investigation werereviewed prior.tothis and deemed appropriate
by Manager Bartley, Deputy Chief Troxel,. ChiefMIIoseVich. I completed the proper
submitted the Vi cleo's that were reviewed a.nd aid nothing inappropri9te.
In the findings it is stated thatthe subject's.were complianVwith noaggressive actions to.ward any
member of the jail staff, until Sgt. enteredthe area. Sgt. appears to
both applications of force by his words and/or conduct. This statement is completely That
in fact with regard to the intnateWho in my He had been involved in an altercation in his
cell with inmate. When I arrived from nly office to ceii.''S1'' the inmate. was yelling at Officer
. .
Hoopii about a .towel as indicated on my use offorce report: The inmate . .was at no time compliant to
verbal commands to stop yelling, _however vias seated and not a threat. I was trying to explain _ ___,
we needed to figure out what had and he needed to carm down and shut up. During this
time the inmate spit in my face and force was applied; In reviewing the video afterwards I believe it
to show the officers I was with responded 'before I did to theassault, as they had seen him spit on
me. The inmate was using the le;st amount offorce necessary to gain compliance a
was placed in "The Wrap." Following this event Ivvent i.ntothe cell along with Officer Brunner and
asked the if he had my face had itbeen a mistake as .he was yelling .. He
replied "I st
11
.'; Thisstatement indicates to methat he had spaton me,
1 ,. '
On the second use of force being questioned involving an intoxicated subject in the.BA.C room: At no
.. - "
time was this gentle.man upset while I was in the room. That we engaged in conversation af)d that he
thought I was cute and attempted to hisJinger in my earwhHe stating thathe hacl Arbs. This
. : ' ,: ' __ ' ': . . . . . . . .
event was also documented properly and reviewed. I also thi.s video along with my reports.
- . , '. : . , :. - ;' ': . . .. ..:- . :, . . ',- .
In both use of force allegations .neither the subjects that forc;e was used on .complained that 1 acted
inappropriately and all the other officers present agreed th('lti acted appropriately .
. . ' . . " _--. . ', . .,
aljegati9nsl feel that I.have
been completely honest during . ''
I stated several times during intervievv .that I did tell he cquidfjle a complaint
and how to do it. Thathe coUidput on paper tbingshe abc)uLtorne and send
it up. In previous questions I had already ansvvered. issues were with Sgt.
and that I felt that the biggest issue to him was his release date and the fact that he felt
Sgt. would not .give him a solid.ahswer !.at no time directeda
subordinate to taU< to Trustee aboutfilinga complaint, that! may have mentioned that he
wanted to file a complaint.
I would also like to take this time to point out that this event occurred on March 16th, 2009 around
lunch time. I spoke with Trustee for.Appcoxim(ltely t(lree (3) minutes regarding this issue. I
then worked thatfull three.(3) day rotation and the following three (3) day rotation and. neither I nor
any of my subordinates made mention of a lettertQ anyone Trustee. dDring this
time; I wenton vacation on the. 25th ()fMafch and under investigation:
' ' '.. . . . ' . '.
In regards to Officer statements I believe thati covered this issue a previous accusation.
.. . . . ' - -, ' . ' . -._
Insubordination: I have no rebuttal to this allegatiC>o. Iknewthat a ''Gag" orderwas in place and
having known this I still the ;rder; I have no for my actions andtake full
responsibility. I was upset following the interview and although this does not excuse my behavior for
this action, I hope that it explains my reasoning at the. time ... ..
r have given you two initial one copy, tht this is being .
placed in my personnel file along with the inve'stigation ..
[Your Name]
Date
(
POliCE DEPARTMENT
M E M 0 R A N D U M
DATE: September 21, 2009
Sgt. TO:
FROM: Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police
Intent to Discipline I C0-0309 SUBJECT:
I have received and reviewed the investigation that was conducted by Commander Clark
Wilcox. I have also reviewed the findings and discipline recommendations submitted by
both Commander Wilcox and Deputy Chief Tim Troxel.
ALLEGATION #1
General Order 26.1.1.11.8. Unbecoming Conduct - Members of the Police Department
shall conduct themselves at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to
reflect most favorably on the Department. Unbecoming conduct shall include that
which brings the Department into disrepute or reflects discredit upon the individual as.
a member of the Police Department, or that which impairs the operation or efficiency
of the Department or the individual.
This investigation documents numerous opportunities where you have failed as a
leader. This failed leadership impacted Sgt the Jait and the Department.
According to your own statement:
You believe it is your responsibility as a supervisor to set the example for your
subordinates to follow.
You believe it is your responsibility to ensure a cohesive working relationship in
the Jail.
You are responsible for the health and welfare on inmates who are in custody in
our Jail.
You admitted to having conversations with members of the Jail staff regarding
your displeasure with Sgt
You stated that you "vented" with your crew as a reaction of Sgt
crew finding the dope baggies on an inmate. (Result of a l<ing County search)
You stated that it was "bullshit".
(
You stated that you described Sgt as incompetent and indecisive to
other members of the Jail staff. That this is a result of complaints by staff
associated with Sgt
You stated in interview #2 that you might have told "If Sgt
can't make a decision, I'll make it." (Referring to a release date)
When subordinates have expressed concerns regarding Sgt you
stated that you usually ignore it because it's been told so many times. And that
you initially notified Manager Bartley of the concerns, but not in the past two
years.
That you were notified by Manager Bartley that Sgt received a poor
evaluation and you shared this information with Jailer
Finding: Sustained
ALLEGATION #2
Auxiliary Services Division Standard Operating ~ r o c e d u r e #038. Employee /Inmate
Fraternization- Jailers will not accept nor solicit any items, money, service or
consideration from any inmate, inmate's family, friends of an inmate, or solicit a
reward from any bondsman or agency. Additionally, jailers will not recommend or
direct and inmate toward any specific bondsman, attorney or other inmate agency.
The origination of the complaint is troublil"!g. Inmate was performing the
functions of a Trustee in the jail. Trustee's have access to many areas within the jail,
including to overhearing conversations in the Control room.
According to Inmate
He requested a release date from Sgt Sgt was getting off
shift and told he could discuss it next week or he could talk to Sgt
the following day.
spoke with Sgt the next day. Sgt stated he would give
him a release date in exchange for a letter to the Jail Commander stating that Sgt
was incompetent, indecisive and a poor sergeant.
brought this information to Sgt attention.
According to your statements:
You had a discussion with
was complaining about the lack of receiving a release date.
was complaining about Sgt
You advised to write down his complaint and that you would send it to
the Jail Commander.
~ h release date that you gave included gifted time (more than 7 days-
lf 14 ays in this case), not usually given without the approval of the Jail
'o mander.
That you did not receive prior approval from the Jail Commander to award the
"gifted time".
I do not believe there is enough information to sustain the allegation. However, the
sequence of events associated with this allegation is suspicious. Both and you
have a motive from such a letter if it was written. wants out of the Jail, and you
clearly have an on-going frustration with Sgt .
Finding: Not Sustained
ALLEGATION #3
General Order 1.3.1. Wse of Force Authorization- Members shall use a reasonable
amount of force necessary to accomplish the arrest, overcome perceived resistance to
arrest, defend themselves or others from harm or to control a situation. The degree of
force used shall be in direct relationship to amount of resistance perceived by the
member, or the imminent threat the person poses to the member or others. Members
will use only the force necessary to accomplish lawful objectives.
The investigation focused on two (2) uses of force in the jail where you became
involved. Both incidents are documented with Use of Force reports and video (no
audio) from the jail system. In the first instance on December 29, 2008, Officer
Ashbaugh was processing a DUI arrestee in the BAC room. On video, you entered the
BAC room and spoke with Officer Ashbaugh; you sat next to the arrestee on the BAC
bench. Within seconds, the suspect puts his fingers in his own mouth then attempts to
place those wet fingers on you. The suspect's action resulted in your control ofthe
subject's hand/ arm with soft-empty hand techniques.
In the second use afforce on December 30, 2008, Jailer Hoopii is dealing with an inmate
who had allegedly been assaulted by another inmate. As the subject inmate is seated
on the floor in the padded cell, Jailer Hoopii is talking with the inmate. You briskly
entered the room and immediately entered the personal space of the inmate, pointing
your finger within inches of the inmate's face. Within a few seconds the inmate spits at
you. As a result Jailer Hoopii, Jailer Dement, and you push the subject and restrained
him, eventually placing him in The Wrap.
The Use of Force reports are accurate. However, I believe you instigated this second use
of force by getting too close to the seated inmate. It appears the inmate reacted to you
invading his personal space. This action of instigating a reaction by the inmate does not
violate the letter of the policy as written above. However, it does fall under our
Unbecoming Conduct policy.
(
Finding: Not-Sustained on Use of Force, Sustained on Unbecoming Conduct
ALLEGATION #4
General Order 26.1.1.11.TT. Insubordination- Members of the Police Department shall
promptly obey any lawful orders of a superior officer. This will include orders relayed
from a superior officer by an officer of the same or lesser rank.
The investigation revealed that you knowingly disobeyed a direct order given by
Commander Karlewicz to not discuss this investigation with any person in the police
department except your guild representative. The investigation revealed that you spoke
with numerous Department members.
Finding: Sustained
Discipline Recommendation:
Eighty (80) hour suspension without pay.
o Successful completion of a performance action plan as developed by your
supervisor.
The Department's General Orders outlines your appeal rights. Please notify Sherry
Smith within 5 days of receiving this memo if you wish to discuss this discipline
recommendation or request to exercise your appeal options.
After notification, I will schedule the appropriate meeting or review board. I will then
notify you of my final decision.
I have received a copy of the intent to discipline memorandum.
~ < ; _ l ~ [ 6'\
Date
(
(
POLICE DEPARTMENT
M E M 0 R A N D U M
DATE: October 8, 2009
Sgt. TO:
FROM: Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police V\
Discipline C0-0309 SUBJECT:
I have received and reviewed the investigation that was conducted by Commander Clark
Wilcox. I have also reviewed the findings and discipline recommendations submitted by
both Commander Wilcox and Deputy Chfef Tim Troxel.
On October ih, a Loudermill hearing was held in my office. At this meeting, you were
represented by Sgt. Skelton. We discussed the circumstances regarding the "gifting" of
good time for Inmate the use of force incident in the holding facility; and you
openly admitted to the allegation of insubordination.
ALLEGATION #1
Auxiliary Services Division Standard Operating Procedure #038. Employee I Inmate
Fraternization -Jailers will not accept nor solicit any items
1
money
1
service or
consideration from any inmate
1
inmate
1
s family
1
friends of an inmate
1
or solicit a
reward from any bondsman or agency. Additionally
1
jailers will not recommend or
direct and inmate toward any specific bondsman
1
attorney or other inmate agency.
The origination of the complaint is troubling. Inmate was performing the
functions of a Trustee in the jail. Trustee's have access to many areas within the jail,
including to overhearing conversations in the Control room.
According to Inmate
He requested a release date from Sgt Sgt was getting off
shift and told he could discuss it next week or he could talk to Sgt
the following day.
spoke with Sgt the next day. Sgt stated he would give
him a release date in exchange for a letter to the Jail Commander stating that Sgt
was incompetent, indecisive and a poor sergeant.
brought this information to Sgt attention.
(
(
According to your statements:
You had a discussion with .
was complaining about the lack of receiving a release date.
was complaining about Sgt
o You advised to write down his complaint and that you would send it to
the Jail Commander.
You provided a release date that included good time for his status as a Trustee.
I do not believe there is enough information to sustain the allegation.
Finding: Not Sustained
ALLEGATION #2
General Order 1.3.1. Use of Force Authorization- Members shall use a reasonable
amount of force necessary to accomplish the arrest, overcome perceived resistance to
arrest, defend themselves or others from harm or to control a situation. The degree of
force used shall be in direct relationship to amount of resistance perceived by the
member, or the imminent threat the person poses to the member or others. Members
will use only the force necessary to accomplish lawful objectives.
The investigation focused on two (2) uses of force in the jail where you became
involved. Both incidents are documented with Use of Force reports and video (no
audio) from the jail system. In the first instance on December 29, 2008, Officer
Ashbaugh was processing a DUI arrestee in the BAC room. On video, you entered the
BAC room and spoke with Officer Ashbaugh; you sat next to the arrestee on the BAC
bench. Within seconds, the suspect puts his fingers in his own mouth then attempts to
place those wet fingers on you. The suspect's action resulted in your control of the
subject's hand I arm with soft-empty hand techniques.
In the second use of force on December 30, 2008, Jailer Hoopii is dealing with an inmate
who had allegedly been assaulted by another inmate. As the subject inmate is seated
on the floor in the padded cell, Jailer Hoopii is talking with the inmate. You briskly
entered the room and immediately entered the personal space of the inmate, pointing
your finger within inches of the inmate's face. Within a few seconds the inmate spits at
you. As a result Jailer Hoopii, Jailer Dement, and you push the subject and restrained
him, eventually placing him in The Wrap.
The Use of Force reports are accurate. However, I believe you instigated this second use
of force by getting too close to the seated inmate. It appears the inmate reacted to you
invading his personal space. This action of instigating a reaction by the inmate does not
violate the letter of the policy as written above. However, it does call into question the
tactic that was used to gain compliance. While "invading" an inmate's personal space
(
does not legally permit the inmate to make an aggressive response, I consider this
incident as a training issue rather than a discipline issue.
Finding: Not-Sustained with a recommendation of additional training of options
available under similar circumstances.
ALLEGATION #3
General Order 26.1.1.11.TT. Insubordination- Members of the Police Department shall
promptly obey any lawful orders of a superior officer. This will include orders relayed
from a superior officer by an officer of the same or lesser rank.
The investigation revealed that you knowingly disobeyed a direct order given by
Commander Karlewicz to not discuss this investigation with any person in the police
department except your guild representative. The investigation revealed that you spoke
with numerous Department members.
Finding: Sustained
Discipline Recommendation:
Additional in-service training regarding use-of-force options
Forty-eight (48) hour suspension without pay.
Successful completion of a performance action plan as developed by your
supervisor.
The Department's General Orders {26.1.6) and the Collective Bargaining Agreement list
your appeal rights.
Date
(
RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
OFFICER I CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
A guide for the investigation
of Internal Affairs complaints
February 1996
(
\.
A Guide for the Invesitagation of Internal Affairs Complaints
PURPOSE
The purpose of this guide is to assist a supervisor who is unfamiliar with the investigation of
internal complaints. The information included is a combination of material from classes on
internal investigations, experiences from investigating complaints, and conversations with other
internal investigators.
INTRODUCTION
The goal ofinternal affairs is to ensure that the integrity ofthe department is maintained through
a system ofinternal discipline where objectivity, fairness and justice are assured by intensive,
impartial investigations and review.
This guide, along with impartial investigations, will help determine real or potential causes of
problems relating to police-community interaction and remedy identified deficiencies; ensure
proper corrective action is taken when appropriate; and will protect personnel from unwarranted
criticism when they perform their respective duties in an approved manner.
The establishment and the maintenance of a professional internal affairs program will identify
wrongful employees, ensure just disciplinary action, vindicate those who are innocent of
misconduct and identify incorrect practices and procedures.
PD Admin/JWP/COGuides 1
A Guide for the Invesitagation of Internal Mfairs Complaints
INVESTIGATIVE GUIDELINES
Investigations are governed by:
Renton Police Department General Orders Section 52.1
Article 15 (Bill of Rights) of the Agreement By and Between the City of Renton and the
Renton Police Officers' Guild (representing Commissioned and Non-Commissioned
employees).
Current Labor Case Law
GENERAL ORDERS SECTION 52.1
This General Order outlines the administration of the internal affairs process. This includes:
What types of complaints are investigated.
Responsibility of the:
1. Chief of Police
2. Deputy Chief
3. Division Commanders
Informal Investigations
Formal Investigations
Complaint Investigation Time Limits
Complainant Notification of Status of Investigation Procedures
Notification of Allegations and Rights (affected employees)
Relief from Duty
Conclusion of Fact
Internal Investigations - Records
Internal Investigations - Annual Summary
Registering Complaint Procedures
ARTICLE 15, BILL OF RIGHTS
Article 15 of the Commissioned and Non-Commissioned contracts outlines the agreed upon
rights of a Guild member who is the focus of an internal investigation. This includes:
Notification procedures
Guild representation
The date and time of the interview
Recording ofthe interview
Basic ground rules of the investigation
PD _ Admin/JWP/COGuides 2
A Guide for the Invesitagation of Internal Affairs Complaints
CURRENT LABOR CASE LAW
These are several outstanding cases that have had an impact on the process of internal
investigations. These include:
Garrityv. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967)
Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 (1968)
National Labor Relations Board v. Weingarten, 420 U.S. 251 (1975)
Garrity
The right to be free from compulsory self-incrimination when such testimony could be used in a
criminal proceeding.
Garrity protects self-testimony obtained in an administrative hearing under threat of discipline or
termination from being entered into a criminal proceeding. There are three requirements:
1. The officer must know that he/she is being ordered to answer the questions and the
consequences for failing to answer.
2. The officer must be asked questions that are specifically, directly, and narrowly related to the
officer's duties or fitness for duty.
3. The officer must be advised that his/her answers will not be used against him/her in a
criminal proceeding.
Gardner
Protects employees from being forced to waive their immunity from a constitutional protected
right. (i.e. self-incrimination via Garrity)
Questions must be specifically, directly, and narrowly related to the performance of official
duties. If an employee fails or refuses to waive immunity under Garrity, the employee can be
investigated for insubordination.
Weingarten
Involves the right of an officer to representation during a disciplinary interview. This right only
extends to a collective bargaining representative. No right to an attorney exists, unless
specifically provided for by statute. Three requirements are necessary to invoke this right.
1. Reasonable belief that the interview will result in disciplinary action.
2. The employee must request the representation.
3. The exercise of the right cannot unduly interfere with the legitimate needs of the employer.
This representation by the collective bargaining representative is an active participation in the
interview process.
PD _Aclmin/JWP /COGuides 3
(
(
A Guide for the Invesitagation of Internal Affairs Complaints
THE FACE SHEET
The face sheet should include:
futemal Mfairs Number
Nature of Complaint
Name of Employee fuvolved
., Allegation Summary
fuvestigation
Findings of Fact
INTERNAL AFFAIRS NUMBER
The internal affairs number will be assigned prior to being assigned to the investigator.
(GO 52.1.1)
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
Under this sub-heading, the investigator will list the actual General Orders that is the basis of the
investigation according to the initial complaint and any subsequent violations which were
uncovered as a result of the investigation.
NAME OF EMPLOYEE INVOLVED
The officer who is under investigation would be listed here.
ALLEGATION SUMMARY
This section is reserved for a brief synopsis of the allegations in the complaint form and any
subsequent violation that were uncovered as a result of the investigation.
INVESTIGATION
The investigation section is the body of the report. The investigation format will be similar to
that of any police investigation. Each entry in the investigation will include both the date and the
time of the contact. The purpose is to document the actions of the investigator. This document
will include:
When the investigation was received.
Both attempted and actual contact with witnesses.
Any receipt of memorandums related to the investigations.
Appointments made for interviews.
futerview dates and times.
Any correspondence related to the investigation.
PD Admin/JWP /CO Guides 4
(
A Guide for the Invesitagation of Internal Affairs Complaints
THE COMPLAINT
The investigator will receive the complaint from an administrator of the Renton Police
Department. The complaint will include a memorandum stating whom the complaint is being
assigned to, and a recommended date of completion.
According to General Orders, the investigator will be expected to conclude the investigation in
30 days. A verbal status report will be given to the Chief of Police at least weekly.
In cases where extenuating circumstances exist, the time limit may be extended by the
Deputy Chief, with the approval ofthe ChiefofPolice. (GO 52.1.4)
Review the complaint and determine the following:
Alleged violations
General Orders affected
11 Identity of the officer(s) involved
11 Identify Complainant's witnesses
Identify Independent witnesses
11 Identify Officer witnesses
PRELIMINARYINVESTIGATION
The next step in the investigation process is to gather as much information about the incident that
is available. This information can be gathered from:
Officers' Reports
11 Use of Force Reports
CAD information
Valley Com Recordings
DOL/W ACIC Information (if necessary)
Background of Complainant
Part of the preliminary investigation is to determine the order in which to interview witnesses
and officers. General the interviews should be in the following order:
1. Complainant
2. Complainant's witnesses
3. Independent witnesses
4. Officer/Department witnesses
5. Accused Officer
PD Admin/JWP/COGuides 5
(
I
(
A Guide for the Invesitagation of Internal Affairs Complaints
THE COMPLAINANT INTERVIEW
The investigator should contact the complainant in order to obtain a tape recorded statement
from hili1!her. The purpose of the interview is to obtain information that needs to be clarified
from the initial complaint and to possibly draw out additional information regarding the alleged
complaint. The tape recorded statement should include:
Date and time of the interview
Name of the person being interviewed
Name of the interviewer
Location of the interview
Acknowledgment of the fact that the interview is being recorded
After the introduction, ask the complainant to describe the incident that resulted in the complaint.
Once the complainant is finished, follow up the conversation asking for specific facts to support
their complaint. For example, if the complainant said the officer was "rude and unprofessional,"
have the complainant be specific by asking for specific examples. During the interview, try not
to be confrontational. The purpose of the interview is to gather as much information about the
incident as possible.
At the conclusion of the interview, ask the complainant if they have anything else to add. This
will give them the opportunity to sum up their statement.
Another purpose of a follow up contact in use of force investigations is to document injuries.
This can be done by photographing and requesting a release of medical records regarding the
lllJUfY.
At the conclusion of the contact, thank the complainant for the interview and explain to them the
process of the investigation. Do not give any specific dates of completion, only that the case is
being investigated and that they will receive notification of the outcome. (GO 52.1.5)
WITNESS INTERVIEWS
Witness interviews should follow the complainant's interview. Depending on the investigator,
witness interviews can be done with or without the tape recorder. Sometimes it depends on the
amount of information that the witness is aware of.
Witnesses should be interviewed in the following order:
1. Complainant's witnesses
2. Independent witnesses
3. Officer/Department witnesses
PD _ AdminiJWP /CO Guides 6
(
A Guide for the Invesitagation of Internal Affairs Complaints
COMPLAINANT AND INDEPENDENT WITNESSES
If these statements are to be recorded they need to include:
Date and time of the interview
Name of the person being interviewed
Name of the interviewer
Location of the interview
" Acknowledgment of the fact that the interview is being recorded
OFFICER I DEPARTMENT WITNESSES
Officer/Department witnesses should begin with the Witness Admonition Statement. This states
that the person to be interviewed is a witness and that they are required by General Orders to
state the truth. A copy of this form is in the back of this pamphlet.
ACCUSED OFFICER INTERVIEW
N oti:fication
Notification procedures are outlined in Article 15 of the Commissioned and Non-Commissioned
Contracts and General Orders Section 52.1.6.
Article 15 states that:
The employee shall be informed in writing as to whether he/she is a witness or suspect before
any interview commences. If the employee is a suspect, he/she shall be appraised in writing of
the allegations of such complaint before any interview commences.
Every employee who becomes the subject of an internal investigation shall be advised at the time
of the interview that he/she is suspected of:
1. Committing a criminal offense.
2. Misconduct that would be grounds for termination, suspension, or other disciplinary action.
3. That he/she may not (be) qualified for continued employment with the Department.
4. Be informed of the name of the officer in charge of the investigation.
5. Be informed of the name of the officer who will be conducting the interview.
PD Admin/JWP/COGuides 7