|
|
|
| ||
 |
|
|
|
Friday, December 30, 2005 WTO case shows firings aren't easy, officials say The King County Sheriff's Office has been gun-shy about firing problem cops ever since it failed to get rid of a deputy who was caught on videotape using excessive force against WTO demonstrators. Sheriff Sue Rahr allowed a vice detective who had 10 sustained department violations to retire rather than be fired because she feared he'd get his job back the way John Vanderwalker -- who was fired in April 2000 after the WTO unrest -- did. Does the department have reason to be spooked? Sheriffs and police chiefs don't always have the last word in firing or disciplining bad cops. Their decisions are often challenged through difficult, lengthy and binding arbitration, a protection that was hard-won by unions but that some critics say unfairly favors employees. But often in King County Sheriff's Office cases, the department's own strategy, testimony or missteps in internal investigations have much to do with arbitration outcomes. In footage broadcast worldwide, Vanderwalker was caught on videotape during the 1999 WTO protests pepper-spraying two demonstrators and kicking an aid worker from behind. Then-Sheriff Dave Reichert fired him for using excessive force and for lying about kicking the aid worker. The King County Police Officers Guild took the case to binding arbitration. An arbitrator chosen by both sides, Michael de Grasse, suspended Vanderwalker for 10 days for the kicking incident but gave him his job back. That high-profile setback, according to Rahr, had a chilling effect on how the department would handle the discipline of Dan Ring a few years later. Ring, a vice detective, was charged with theft, attempted stalking, promoting prostitution and official misconduct, and more than a dozen allegations that he broke department rules. But in a deal Ring signed with Rahr earlier this year, he was allowed to retire. Prosecutors also dropped all charges. "A termination case in the employment arena is like a death-penalty case in the criminal arena," Rahr said in an earlier interview. "You have to have an extraordinary strong case to prevail in a termination. "We had him (Vanderwalker) on videotape. And the termination was overturned," she said. But the Sheriff's Office didn't prove its case, according to the arbitrator's decision. The county didn't prove that the deputy had lied, and it couldn't fire him for excessive force because, when asked whether he would have fired Vanderwalker for that reason alone, Reichert testified that he probably would not have. The sheriff also relied too much on a videotape snippet, chose not to have live testimony from two victims and even offered testimony that raised questions about the victims' credibility, de Grasse wrote. In a rare move, Reichert appealed the decision to a King County Superior Court judge, who ruled that the arbitrator's decision wasn't arbitrary or capricious just because the county didn't like it. Two weeks before losing the high-profile Vanderwalker case, the sheriff had lost another one. Deputy Sherry Valentine won her job back after she was fired for getting into a fight at a Kirkland bar and lying about it. The arbitrator found the investigation was "so flawed as to cast serious doubt on the viability of sustaining the just-cause basis for termination." Some observers say the arbitration process unreasonably favors rank-and-file cops. "You can't have at-will firing," said Mark Iris, former executive director of the Chicago Police Board, which disciplines officers. But by the time a decision is made to suspend or fire an officer, the case has typically gone through multiple levels of internal review, he said. Union attorney Chris Vick said the Sheriff's Office shouldn't blame the guild or arbitration for failing to discipline officers. "The contract says they can fire anybody. They can discipline anybody for just cause," said Vick, who represents union officers for King County and Seattle. "We don't control arbitrations. Neutral judges control arbitrations." Of the Vanderwalker case, he said, "Generally in litigation, the loser blames the judge or the jury. They don't look at their own missteps." The police officers union has won all but two cases it has taken to arbitration since it was formed in 1991. Reichert fired Carlos Ramos in 2000 for misusing his police authority after the detective questioned students at his daughter's high school under the pretense of conducting official police business, documents show. Reeling from two losses in one month, the department fought back and won. "We had a very strong case there, too, and we prevailed in that one," Rahr said in an August interview. In the Vanderwalker case, the county argued that the arbiter put too much burden on it to prove that the deputy had lied. They also said he erred in not allowing their "best evidence of Vanderwalker's dishonesty" -- four audiotapes they said would reflect his tone and inflections. The union criticized Reichert's decision to fire the deputy as a politicized one. The arbitrator agreed. De Grasse wrote that the county's action against the deputy "was greatly a product of its reaction to negative publicity." He declined to discuss his decision. "My function as an arbitrator ends with the rendering of the award," he told the P-I. Valentine had been drinking and became entangled in a fight at a Kirkland bar, according to records. After viewing a security tape of the incident, the internal investigator recommended that she be fired for assault and dishonesty. The deputy first told the investigator that she wasn't drunk, that she didn't assault anyone and that after she left the tavern, she went home. After interviewing her, the investigator amended the charges and added dishonesty because the videotape showed she lingered outside the tavern. When told of the videotape, Valentine changed her story and said she had been very drunk and had an alcohol-related blackout. Richard Croll, the arbitrator in Valentine's case, suspended Valentine for 30 days but reinstated her to the force. He declined to talk about the case. In his decision, Croll wrote that the internal investigation "raised several warning flags about whether it followed the precepts of just cause and due process." The Sheriff's Office has an unsurpassed level of sophistication in investigating and gathering evidence, so the "standard to be applied needs to be an extremely strong 'clear and convincing evidence,' " he wrote. P-I reporter Phuong Cat Le can be reached at 206-448-8390 or phuongle@seattlepi.com.
 INSIDE SEATTLEPI.COM
LIVE CHAT
Investigative reporters Eric Nalder and Lewis Kamb answered readers' questions about this series on Friday, Dec. 30. Read the full transcript.
ABOUT THIS REPORT
This story is part of an ongoing investigation of the King County Sheriff's department. See more.
THE STORIES
Part One: Sheriff's oversight system dated, critics say Ombudsman: Complaints are taken seriously Part Two: Trial of deputies was fueled by politics, says lawyer Part Three: Deputy who turned in her officer-husband felt ostracized WTO case shows firings aren't easy, officials say CONTACTS
Here is contact information for public officials who can address issues raised in this series: Sue Rahr Ron Sims Larry Phillips Norm Maleng VIDEO
 OUR AFFILIATES
Home Delivery: (206) 464-2121 or (800) 542-0820 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
|
My web site
My Yahoo!
Google
