KING COUNTY
KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
516 ThIrd Avenue, W-116
Seattle,WA 98104

John Urquhart
Sheriff

August 5,2015

RE: Loudermill Results IIU 2015-106
Dear Deputy Shoblom:
On June 23, 2015; a Loudermill hearing was held at the King County Courthouse regarding the
intemal investigation referenced above. The allegation in question is:

GOM 3.900.015(1)(a) Making False or fraudulent reports or statements,
committing acts of dishonesty, or inducing others to do so.
In addition to you and your representative, Ms. Julie Kays, also present were Major Dave Jutilla,

Captain Jesse Anderson, Human Resources Senior Manager Lance King, Legal Advisor Diane
Taylor, Legal Advisor Patty Shelledy, and 1IU Detective/Sergeant Frances Carlson, The hearing was
audio recordedwith your and your representative's knowledge and consent.
This memorandum is intended to confirm the major points of discussion at the hearing, present my
findings and conclusions, and provide some explanation of my underlying reasoning. To be clear, it
is a summary. An exhaustive description of every fact or point of analysis considered is beyond its
scope, If this memorandum fails to mention a specific fact or consideration, including, for example,
any from the infonnation you provided at the hearing, that does not mean the particular point was
ignored Or summarily rejected. I fully appreciate the significance of the issues before me and their
potentially significant impact on your job and career, and have proceeded with commensurate care
and deliberation,
As always, I began the Loudermill hearing by explaining its purpose: It provides the accused deputy
an additional opportunity to further explain his or her side of the story, to present additional factors
he or she believes should be known, emphasized or otherwise considered, and to present any other
information the officer or his or her representative believes is exculpatory, mitigating or otherwise
relevant- all before any final decisions are made.
.

 AmyShoblom
August 3,2015
Page 20/5

I also explained that a Loudermill hearing is not mandatory. It is conducted only &t the request of the
employee who, in lieu of the hearing, has the option of accepting the fmdings of the unit commander,
in your case Major Jutilla, and the initial disciplinary recommendation of the command staff, here
Chief Deputy Jim Pugel. If, as here, a hearing is requested, my role is to provide an additional,
independent level of review, to carefully re-examine the relevant circumstances, and then render
determinations as to (i) whether the weight of the evidence supports sustaining the. allegations, and
(ii) if so, what is the appropriate level of corresponding discipline. In making these determinations, I
exercise independent jUdgment. I am not bound by the prior review or recommendations of any
member of the command staff. I may conclude that the evidence does not support a previouslysustained allegation, for example, or concur with a sustained finding, but nevertheless reject the
recommended discipline, choosing instead to increase it or decrease it.
After inquiring whether you had any questions about any of this background, which you did not, I
relinquished the floor to you and lyfs. Kays. Ms. Kays did not provide any input. You limited yours
to the content of a written statement, which you read. Rather than repeat its substance here, I have
enclosed a copy. Sihce the hearing, I have re-read your statement several times, further reviewed the
investigative me, and othelwise devoted considerable additional time to evaluating the overall facts
and circumstances, including your years of service.
The investigation of the above-referenced allegation was conducted by IIU Detective Sergeant
Carlson. Her work, as reflected in the investigative file, was subsequently reviewed by Captain
Anderson in his leadership role over the Internal Investigations Unit (IIU), the IIU Advisory Board,
Major Jutilla, and Chief Deputy Pugel. Stated broadly, Captain Anderson and the IIU Advisory
Board reviewed the sufficiency of the investigative work itself. Was it reasonable in inception, and
satisfactory and fair in administration, including in terms' of timing, scope, and balance? They
concluded it was. Major Jutilla and Chief Deputy Pugel then reviewed the matter not only from that
perspective, but also for purposes of making recommendations as to whether the allegation should be
sustained (Major Jutilla and Chief Deputy Pugel) and; if so, the appropriate level of discipline (Chief
Deputy Pugel). Major Jutilla concluded the aIlegation should be sustained. He summarized his
reasoning in a fmding memorandum dated June 4, 2015, a copy of which is enclosed. Chief Deputy
Pugel subsequently conculTed, and then recommended discharge as the appropriate measure of
discipline.
The matter then proceeded to me for further, and final, review. I, too, found the investigation itself to
be appropriate' in inception, and thorough, objective and fair in execution. It also was timely,
completed within the 180-day requirement set forth in the collective bargaining agreement between
the King County Sheriff's Office and the King County Police Officer's Guild. I also concur with the
detenninations of Major Jutilla and Chief Depnty Pugel .that the allegation of dishonesty should be
sustained, and with Chief Deputy Pugel's recommendation of discharge.
The evidence establishing the allegation is strong. Most fundamentally, there is your statement that
you heard Kelvin Kirkpatrick tell Sergeant Lou Caballero: "I got three fucking deputies out here and
they don't do nothing." You recorded this alleged statement in the memorandum you claim to have
prepared the morning it was allegedly uttered, i.e., November 14,2014. You repeated it on February

 AmyShoblom
August 3,2015
Page 3 0/5

13, 2015, and April 16, 2015, when Detective Sergeant Carlson interviewed you, and again at the
Loudermill hearing. Your statements are directly, and , definitively, refuted by the audio-video
recording Mr. Kirkpatrick made of the exchange.
As you now know, during the morning of November 14th he was wearing a body camera which
recorded the entire interaction between him and Sergeant Caballero. The recording clearly
establishes that he did not use profanity. It also shows that he did not make any other statement that
could have reasonably been misconstrued, misinterpreted or misheard as profanity, let alone
specifically the word "fucking." There is nothing to suggest that the discrepancies between your (and
Sergeant Caballero's) version of events, on the one hand, and Mr. Kirkpah'ick's, on the other, trace to
some misunderstanding. The competing versions are diametrically opposed. The recording,
however, appears to leave no room for disagreement.
Again, Mr. Kirkpatrick does not use profanity. Nor does he use the verbiage, "they don't do
nothing," or any other language that is grammatically incorrect. He speaks loudly, clearly,
grammatically correctly, and professionally. He did little more than express his frustration with the
level of service provided by our office, and his words, tone and manner all were reasonable under the
circumstances. This observation is important because it represents another dimension of your
characterization of him which, in my judgment, does not withstand scrutiny, specifically your
,assertions that during the exchange between Mr. Kirkpatrick and Sergeant Caballero, Mr. kirkpatrick
was "yelling" and "screaming" and generally behaving so inappropriately you "didn't even have the
words" 'to describe it, and would just say "wow."
In the aggregate, you painted him as an intimidating presence, a person who was irate beyond reason,
and angrily, if not wildly, expressing himself through accusation, profanity, and improper English.
The audio-video recording corroborates none of this, and your only response is that the recording is
inexplicably unreliable.
At the Loudermill hearing, through your written statement, you continued to make accusations at Mr.
Kirkpatrick, as well as this office. As for the latter, you referred to the underlying investigation as the
"so-called investigation," intimating it was faulty or incomplete or part of some larger rush to
judgment, but you offered no information to support the assertion.
You also claimed the investigation was undertaken because you previously flied a sexual harassment
complaint against Sergeant Dewey Bums, labeling it a "blatant effort to keep people from coming
fOlward to make similar complaints." Again, however, you offered no evidence to support the
accusation. And the demonstrable fact is that this office supported you in that context: This office
encourages the internal reporting of harassment, thoroughly investigated your specific complaint,
found that Sergeant Bums had acted improperly, and discharged him.
Further, this investigation was clearly prompted by events entirely beyond this office's control,
including, for example, Sergeant Caballero's complaint, Mr. Kirkpatrick's complaint, your interview
during the investigation of that complaint, and the recording. As for Mr. Kirkpatrick's motives, you
questioned why he came forward at all. Based on nothing but supposition, you also claimed that he

 AmyShoblom
August 3,2015
Page 40/5

initially hesitated in producing the recording and this somehow established or suggested that "he had
something to hide." But the evidence, again, is to the contrary. He did not pitch this battle. He
spoke up, and ultimately produced the recording, after he was accused of misconduct, i.e., to defend
himself. And when making his complaint he stated that he feared retaliation, which shows that he,
like too many of the citizens we in law enforcement are responsible for serving and protecting, was
distrustful of the police.
Here, it bears noting that Mr. Kirkpatrick viewed the complaint and accusations against him as acts of
retaliation to begin with. Well before November 14, 2014, he (and others) had voiced concerns
regarding the quality of service being provided after Sergeant Caballero assumed supervisory
responsibility over the Night Owls procedure. These concerns extended to personal safety and
eventually resulted in a meeting held on November 12, 2014, among representatives of this office and
Metro Transit. There, Mr. Kirkpatrick made his concerns clear once again.
.
The fact that, roughly 48 hours later, he was the subject of a formal written complaint submitted by
Sergeant Caballero and falsely accusing him of profanity and other unprofessional conduct struck
him as more than coincidental. It does me, as well. I also find it significant that you and Sergeant
Caballero spoke following the interaction, and prepared written statements within roughly sixty
minutes of one another that are remarkably consistent in tone and content, to the point of misquoting
1\1:r. Kirkpatrick in nearly identical language. While I do not believe that evidence as to one's motive
or purpose is necessary to sustain an allegation of dishonesty, the fact remains that Mr. Kirkpatrick's
perspective is suppOlted by the record-and deeply troubling. I recognize that Sergeant Caballero,
not you, authored and submitted the complaint against Mr. Kirkpatrick. While this fact is celtainly
further indictment of Sergeant Caballero's judgment, in my view it neither excuses nor lessens the
significance of your own actions. From beginning to end, you supported Sergeant Caballero and were
squarely involved in this regrettable sequence of events.
This also is no small matter. Your (and Sergeant Caballero' s) actions did a significant disservice to
Mr. Kirkpatrick, not only by unilaterally attributing to him profane language he claims to assiduously
avoid, but also by mischaracterizing his speech and composure (which he actually succeeded in
maintaining), and impugning his character and integrity, first by claiming he was lying, then by
suggesting he somehow manipulated, doctored or replaced the original recording. Further, the
potential adverse consequences to Mr. Kirkpatrick extended well beyond his pride and reputation,
though those certainly suffice. As you know, the asseltions against him resulted in an internal
investigation of his behavior by Metro Transit. Absent the contemporaneous recording, the upshot of
this investigation could well have been the urifair imposition of significant disciplinary action against .
Mr. Kirkpatrick. Through no fault of his own, his professional reputation was questioned and his job
security jeopardized .
. Your (and Sergeant Caballero' ~) actions also did a significant disservice to this office and your fellow
officers. Your actions cast both in a negative light, and support the type of assumptions,
preconceptions, and skepticism that erode and undermine the public trust that is central to our
standing in the community and necessary for the effective delivery of our law enforcement services.

 AmyShoblom
August 3, 2015
Page 5 of5

As a deputy, you have the power, authority and responsibility to make decisions that materially affect
many other people, including other officers and members of the public. The disposition of criminal
cases and related matters often turn on your word as a police officer. Your word may determine
whether a citizen is arrested, charged, indicted, convicted, jailed or fmed. It may substantially impact
a citizen's libelty, reputation, personal and professional relationships, and future. And all of this is
magnified by the fact that you exercise this authority largely unsupervised.
In many instances, unlike here, your word as an officer is not subject to any measure of independent
check or confirmation. Rather, it stands on its own, backed only'by the badge and the hard-earned
goodwill of the depaltment the officer represents. Both the public, in general, and this office, in
particular, grant you this broad authority essentially on a single condition, which is that you exercise
it honestly, that you can be trusted. In the fmal analysis, it is the breach of this fundamental bargain
that warrants, if not compels, discharge.
Your discharge is effective August 7, 2015. Notwithstanding the larger circumstances, I thank you
for your past service, and wish you well in your future endeavors.
Very truly yours,

cc:

IID Case file, 2015-106
Chief Deputy Jim Pugel
Major Dave Jutilla
Captain Jesse Anderson
Sergeant Frances Carlson
Mr. Steve Eggert
Julie Kays
HR Manager Lance King
Legal Advisor Diane Taylor
Legal Advisor Patty Shelledy
Sheriff's File