SEA TTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
DATE:

TO

Captain PaulMcDonagh
East Precinct Commander

FROM

on""rß#lMurphy and Captain Dick Reed
Office of Professional Accountability (OPA)

SUBJECTI

Director's Certification Memo for OPA Case #2015-0117

7t20t201.s

INFORMATION FOR REVIEWER:
This Director's Certification Memo (DCM) represents the opinion of the OPA Director regarding the
misconduct alleged. The DCM, while based upon the evidence and information contained in the case file,
should not be considered part of the investigative process. It should be viewed as an aid to your evaluation
of the Director's findings. Please review the case file in Blue Team if you have questions or further
information is desired.
The Director's recommended finding for an allegation contained in this investigation is sustained; a
discipline meeting will be scheduled.

CASE IDENTIFICATION:
OPA Case Number:

20r5-0rr7

Incident Date:
Date Reported:
180-Day Expiration Date (SPOG)

0710912014
01128120r5
0712'71201s

Named Employee

Whitlatch, Cynthia

#1

Subject:

Complainant:

-

Officer #6229

William Wingate
William Anderson
Joey Gray

Witness
V/itness
Witness
Witness
Witness

Other

Form

Lll

#1:
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:

Evidence:

Rev.2/07

Sergeant Joe Lam
Officer Ben Archer
Officer Christopher Coles
Captain Piene Davis
Assistant Chief Nicholas Metz

GO 2014-222942;Related ICV, Court Records, Administrative Records

Page

I of9

 ALLEGATIONS OF'MISCONDUCT AND THE DIRECTOR'S F'INDINGS:
Named Employee

Allegation

#I

:

Voluntary Contact and Terry Stops: Terry Stops are
Seizures and Must be
Based on Reasonable Suspicion in Order to be Lawful
6.220 (1) [Issued 0113012014)

Director's Finding

Sustained

Allegation #2:

Standards

& Duties: Exercise of Discretion 5.001 (V[)

(A) fissued 0811512012]
Director's Finding

Sustained

Allegation #3:

Use of Force Core Principles: When Time,
Circumstances, and Safety Permit, Officers Will Take
Steps to Gain Compliance and De-Escalate Conflict
without Using Physical Force 8.000 (2) [Issued
0U01120141

Director's Finding:

Sustained

Allegation #4:

Using Force - Use-of-Force: When Authorized 8.100 (1)
flssued 0110112014]

Director's Finding:

Sustained

Allegation #5:

Bias-Free Policing - Employees WillNot Engage in
Bias-Based Policing 5.140 (2) flssued 0113012014]

Director's Finding:

Sustained

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Officer Cynthia Whitlatch arrested William Wingate on July gth,2014. According to the police report
authored by Officer Coles, Wingate allegedly raised his golf club, struck a stop sign, and then shook the
club threateningly towards Whitlatch. During her contact, Whitlatch wrote in her report that Wingate was
not cooperative and obstructed her efforts to investigate his actions further. He was arrested and booked
into King County Jail for Harassment-SMc 124.06.040 and Obstructing a Police Officer-SMC
r 24.16.0 r 0.
Reviewers should read the OPA Investigative Summary for additional detailed information

FTNDINGS OF FACT:
o

The police report is not consistent with the Named Employee's OPA interviews describing the
incident, panicularly with respect to Mr. Wingate's alleged behavior prior to speaking to the
Named Employee.r

I

The named employee's,statements at her second OPA interview indicate a lack of factual basis for her actions in her encounter with Mr. Wingate.
The information provided to OPA is at odds with the Named Employee's descriptions on the day ofthe incident and, to some degree, at her first
OPA interview. However, she was not the author ofthe police report, although she did provide information to be included in the report. The cause of
the conflicting accounts of what she actually saw as she drove past Mr. Wingate is unclear. She may (or may not) truly believe- based on assumption
rather than seeing it - that Mr. Wingate tried to hit her car with a golf club.

Form

l.l

I

Rev, 2/07

Page 2 of 9

 ¡
o
o
o
.
¡
o
.
.
o
o
o
o
.
.

The Named Employee did not see Mr. Wingate swing his golf club at the police car and hit the stop
sign; instead, she admits that she only saw movement out of the corner of her eye and heard a noise,
leading her to assume he swung at her car and hit the stop sign.
The Named Employee did see Mr. Wingate move his golf club from one side to the other while he
was looking at her police car drive away.
The Named Employee observed Mr. Wingate look at her with a furrowed brow and assumed that he
was purposefully directing an "angry" look at her.
Upon contact, the Named Employee repeatedly ordered Mr, V/ingate to drop his golf club. As Mr.
V/ingate protested and said that it was his golf club, the Named Employee replied, "l'm not going
to take it from you, but it is a weapon".
As the Named Employee continued to order Mr. Wingate to o'set the golf club down", Mr. Wingate
asked her to call somebody, The Named Employee indicated she had done so. Mr. Wingate then
insisted he o'ain't done nothing to nobody". The Named Employee replied, "you just swung the golf
club at me".
Mr. Wingate was adamant that he did not swing his club at her, and he refused to comply with her
orders.

Officer Coles arrived to assist the Named Employee and asked Mr. Wingate to give him the golf
club, which Mr. Wingate immediately did.
The Named Employee then detained Wingate applying force to his left wrist as she held him
against the side of her police car and searched through his pockets. Subsequently Mr. Wingate was
arrested for Harassment and Obstructing.
The Named Employee later contacted the Cify Attorney's Office to strongly encourage the office to
move forward with the charges against Mr. Wingate, something she admittedly rarely does.
Mr. Wingate was charged with Unlawful Use of a Weapon to intimidate another, in violation of
SMC 12 A)4.075. Mr. Wingate pled not guilty and thereafter a DispositionalContinuance was
offered to and accepted by Mr. Wingate (whereby the charges would be dismissed in two years,
pending no further criminal activity by V/ingate).
Around the same time as the arrest of Mr. Wingate, the Named Employee posted comments to
Facebook about "chronic black racism" and that she was "tired of hearing a black racist tell me the
only reason they are being contacted [by police] is because they are black." Community leaders
contacted the City to complain about Mr. Wingate's arrest.
Criminal Division Chief Craig Sims at the Seattle City Attorney's office subsequently conducted
further investigation, including a review of the In-Car Video (ICV), and decided to seek dismissal
of the charges against Mr. Wingate. This was approved by Cify Attorney Peter Holmes, Mr,
Wingate's charges were dismissed'
The Named Employee' s (then) chain of command counseled her about the incident.
Deputy Chief Carmen Best also met with Mr. Wingate.
During her second OPA interview, during a discussion of why she followed up with the City
Attorney's Office about Mr. Wingate's charges, the Named Employee - without prompting - said
"let me just put this on the table" and then stated that the disposition of Mr. Wingate's case was
changed by "guess who, Judge Bonner." She then brought up Deputy Chief Carmen Best's meeting
with Mr. Wingate. Named Employee then said "What race were these? The judge was black and the
Chief is black, so I mean to me...how does that look? It, it doesn't support the officer, that's for
sure."

Form I. I

I

Rev. 2/07

Page 3

of9

 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Allegation

#l:

Section 6.220

(l)

of the Seattle Police Manual in effect at the time of the incident (enacted 0113012014):

Terry Slops are Seizures ønd Musl Be Based on Reøsonable Suspicion ín Order to be Lawful

A Terry stop must be

based on reasonable suspícíon and documented using specific articulable facts as described in this policy.

This policy prohibits Terry stops when an officer lacks reøsonable suspicion that a subject has been, is, or ís about to be
engaged in the commission of a crime.
Searches and seizures by

Constitution Article

l,

fficers are lawful to the extent they meet

Section

the requírements of the 4'h Amendment-andlilashington

7.

A Terry stop is a seizure for investigative purposes. A seizure occurs any time an fficer, by means of physical force or show of
authority, has in some way restraíned the liberty of a citizen. A seizure may also occur if an fficer uses words, actions, or
demeanor that would make a reasonable person believe that he or she is not free to go.

The Named Employee initially reported that her basis for the Teruy Stop was the behavior she observed as
she was turning left onto l ltr'Ave. from E. Pike street. As reported by Officer Coles in the General Offense
Report documenting this incident, the Named Employee reported that as she turned her patrol car left past
Wingate, she had seen Wingate look at her and "then aggressively swing his golf club in the direction of her
patrol car", striking a stop sign as it was swung. The Named Employee also reported to Officer Coles that
she considered Mr. Wingate's behavior to be "aggressive" and feared that either she or members of the
public "might be assaulted by Wingate if he continued aggressively swinging his golf club in a public

setting."
When interviewed by OPA the first time, however, the Named Employee did not state the same
observations of Mr. Wingate's behavior. She said she made eye contact with Mr. Wingate as he was a
pedestrian walking eastbound on E. Pike nearing I 1tr' Ave. She indicated Wingate was using the golf club
as a cane. She determined it was safe to turn and as she drove northbound on 1 ltl'Ave. As she completed
the turn, she saw movement and noted that Mr. Wingate was "raising the golf club up and saw him start to
swing it". The Named Employee continued driving and reported hearing the sound of metal on metal. She
looked back in the rear-view mirror and saw Wingate looking in her direction and, "swing the golf club
toward my car twice" while she continued driving northbound on 1 ltl' Ave. The Named Employee activated
her in-car video and drove around the block intending to contact Mr. Wingate and investigate further.
During a second OPA interview, the Named Employee gave a third version of what she actually saw and
heard when she first saw Mr. Wingate. She said that as she drove past Mr. Wingate she saw a blur of
motion out of the corner of her eye then heard the sound of metal on metal. The Named employee was in
the driver's seat of her police car, two to three feet from the curb as she drive past Mr. Wingate who was
standing near the stop sign pole on the sidewalk facing her, approximately two to three feet from the curb.
This means that the Named Employee was somewhere between four and six feet away from Mr. Wingate at
the time she saw the movement heard a "clang" she took to be the sound of the club striking the pole, not
the sign on top of the pole. The Named Employee did not see the club raised over Mr. Wingate's head but
held parallel to the ground. The Named Employee futher stated that, as she looked back in her rear-view
mirror she saw a look on Mr. 'Wingate's face she described as "angry, you know, furrowed brow".
In order for a Terry stop to comply with policy, it must be based on reasonable suspicion that an individual
has been or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. Based on the Named Employee's most recent
iteration of the facts of the case, there was no reasonable suspicion here. Her conclusion that Wingate posed
a threat to her and/or the public is not supported by her own statements to OPA about what she actually
saw. By her own telling, she saw only a perceived angry expression she believed was directed at her while

Form

1.1

I

Rev.2/07

Page 4

of9

 Mr. Wingate was moving his golf club, none of which leads to a reasonable conclusion that
about to be or had just been committed.

a crime was

During the investigation the Named Employee documents that her justification for the initial Terry stop was
to investigate the behavior of Mr. Wingate as she observed him swinging the golf club in a manner that the
Officer perceived as posing a physical threat to her and/or others. She stated that this formed the basis for
reasonable suspicion that Wingate had or was about to commit a crime. However, OPA finds that an
examination of the evidence does not support the Named Employee's conclusion that there was a
reasonable basis to believe that Wingate was engaged or was about to engage in criminal activify. Given no
reasonable basis to tie Wingate to actual or potential criminal activity, or to reasonably believe that she had
a duty to protect Wingate or the public from imminent harm, the Named Employee lacked the authority
under SPD policy to conduct a Terry stop of Wingate and detain him. The preponderance of the evidence
from this investigation supports the conclusion of Sustained.

Allegation #2:
Section 5.001 (VII) (A)

(l)

of the Seattle Police Manual in effect at the time of the incident (enacted

0811512012):
Professíonalism - Exercíse of Discrelíon
A. Department employees, and particularly sworn uniformed fficers, are the most conspicuous representat¡ves of governmenl, and
are legally granted signíficant authority to enforce the law and ensure public order and safety. The standards that govern thís
authority include conduct that is respectful, neutral, objective and unbiased. Specífic rules and guidelines that relate to this
st a ndard i nc lude t he fol I ow i ng;
l. Exercise of Díscretion
Discretion consists ofthe abÌtity to ap'ply reason, professional experience andjudgment in decision-møking. Employees are
authorized and expected to use discretion consistent wíth the mission of the Department and duties of their ffice and assignment.
The scope ofdiscretion ís proportional to the severity ofthe crime or public safety issue being addressed. For example, an
employee's scope of discretion in dealing with a minor broader than when an employee is affecting an arrest on probable cause for
a domestic violence misdemeanor or felony.

As soon as the first back-up officer arrived, Mr. Wingate handed over the golf club. It appears that this
second officer was able to communicate with Mr. Wingate and calm the situation by behaving less
aggressively toward Mr. Wingate. It is at this point in the encounter where there was an oppoftunity and an
obligation for the Named Employee to pause, assess different tactics with Mr. Wingate and take a different
approach to resolve the incident. Instead, the Named Employee continued to push forward with a detention
and subsequent arrest of Mr. Wingate for Harassment and Obstructing.
The Department's policy on the exercise of discretion obligates an officer to "apply reason, professional
experience and judgment" in making decisions regarding enforcement of the law. If the Named Employee's
purpose in making contact with Mr, Wingate was to assess his mental state and determine whether or not he
was a threat, this could have easily been accomplished without any charges at all, or by releasing him once
her curiosity was satisfied and routing a report to the City Prosecutor for review and consideration of
charges. In this case, however, the Named Employee failed to take advantage of the opportunity provided
by the arrival of the second offìcer to pause and apply reason and judgment in deciding the best course of
action. Instead, she compounded the problem caused by her unreasonable conclusion that Mr. Wingate was
a potential threat to her and the public and her assertion that he was carrying a "weapon" by taking Mr.
Wingate into custody, causing him to be booked into jail and lobbying the City Prosecutor to follow
through with charges. The Named Employee displayed throughout this incident a distinct lack of reasoned
balance and judgment.

The preponderance of the evidence from this investigation supports the conclusion of sustained.

Form

Ll

l

Rev.2l07

Page 5

of9

 Allegation #3:
Section 8.000 (2) of the Seattle Police Manual in effect at the time of the incident (enacted 0110112014):

llthen Time, Círcumstances, and Safety Permil, Oflicers llill Tøke Steps to Gain Compliance and De-Escalate Conflicl without
Usíng Physical Force
Ilthen safe under the lotality of circumstances and tíme and circumstances permit, fficers shall use advísements, warnings, verbal
persuasion, and other taclics in order to reduce the need to use force.
Officers should consider whether a subject's lack of compliance is a deliberate attempt to resist or an ínabilíty to comply based on
factors including, but not limited to:
, Medical conditions
. Mental impairment
, Developmental disability
. Physical limitation
. Language barrier
. Drug interaction
. Behavioral crisis

From the beginning of her face-to-face encounter with Mr. Wingate, the Named Employee chose to
unnecessarily escalate the interaction by treating him and the situation as a clear threat. Not only was this an
unreasonable conclusion based on what she had actually observed at that time, the Named Employee then
persisted in this approach in spite of clear indications that her initial assessment of Mr. Wingate might have
been erroneous. At that time, Mr. Wingate was not posing an immediate physical threat, nor was he leaving.

The policy required that the Named Employee consider factors that indicated Mr. Wingate was not
deliberately resisting her orders, and she instead completely ignored the presence of those factors. Mr.
Wingate can be heard making statements to the effect that the golf club was his walking stick. He also
stated that he could not hear or understand what the Named Employee was saying and why she was talking
to him. The Named Employee was in a position to observe Mr. Wingate's age, physical size and condition,
possible loss of hearing and potential confusion.

The specific details of the incident show that the Named Employee had sufficient time and circumstances to
attempt a variety of approaches toward her interaction with Mr. Wingate, yet the Named Employee ignored
the requirements of the policy and instead repeatedly chose the most aggressive options. Once Mr. Wingate
made it clear that he was not letting go of his golf club, the Named Employee escalated her interaction with
him by accusing him of swinging the club at her. This resulted in an angry denial by Mr. Wingate and an
o'on
audio and
erroneous assertion by the Named Employee that the alleged "assault" with the golf club was
video tape". As Mr. Wingate repeatedly asked the Named Employee to "call someone", she ordered him
three times to "put it down". The Named Employee then raised the volume and pitch of her voice and
shouted, "Sir, put it down!"

If it were not already clear to Mr. Wingate that he was being detained

by the Named Employee, she then
informed him, o'You're not free to leave right now, please put it down," Mr. Wingate repeated his request
that the Named Employee call someone, saying, "l want a witness." Mr. Wingate then turned to a woman
passing by and began talking with her while the Named Employee continued to order him to put the golf
club down, punctuating this order with a threat of arrest and two more assertions that he was not free to
leave.

This confrontation by the Named Employee and Mr. Wingate's refusal to surrender his golf club until
another officer was present ended as Officer Coles arrived on foot from the nearby East Precinct. Mr.
Wingate immediately walked toward Officer Coles and handed him the golf club when asked. Officer Coles
achieved this through verbal persuasion, by speaking to Mr. Wingate in a much more moderated tone than
the Named Employee. The Named Employee followed on foot behind Mr. Wingate shouting three more
times at him to "set it down". It should also be noted that, as the Named Employee followed Mr, Wingate,

Form

Ll

I

Rev.2/07

Page 6

of9

 she walked in front of the ICV camera in her patrol car and can be seen holding a nightstick and apparently
placing it back into the holder on her duty belt, From this, it can be concluded that she had been holding the
nightstick in her hand during her confrontation with Mr. Wingate.

Other than insisting that he would not put down his golf club until another officer arrived to be a witness,
Mr. Wingate displayed no behavior and made no statements that were remotely threatening. Nonetheless,
the Named Employee failed to modulate or alter her aggressive tone and actions, repeatedly telling him that
he was not free to leave and threatening him with arrest. At some point she even had a nightstick in her
hand, further defining the interaction as dangerous and escalating the situation.

It is precisely this

sort of police interaction over a minor event that unnecessarily escalated into "contempt
of cop" arrests and the use of force that led (in part) to calls for a Federal Investigation of the Seattle Police
Department and resulted in the current Settlement Agreement between the City and the Department of
Justice. In order to prevent such escalation and the unnecessary use of force, SPD enacted a Use of Force
policy that specifically obligated officers to "use advisements, warnings, verbal persuasion, and other
tactics in order to reduce the need to use force" when it is safe to do so and time and circumstances permit.
The encounter between the Named Employee and Mr. Wingate was such a circumstance and the Named
Employee failed to adjust her initial, aggressive approach.
The preponderance ofthe evidence supports the conclusion of sustained

Alleeation #4:
Section 8.100

(l)

of the Seattle Police Manual in effect at the time of the incident (enacted 0110112014)

F orce : llth e n Aut ho rízed
fficer shall use only the force

U se- of-

reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to efectively bring an incident or person under
control, while protectíng the lives of the fficer or others. In other words, fficers shall only use objectively reasonableforce,
proportional to the threat or urgency of the situation, when necessary, to achieve a law-enþrcement objective. The force used must
comply withfederal and state law and Seattle Police Department policies, training, and rules for specí/ic instruments and devices,
Once it is safe to do so and the threat is contained, and/or the subject complies with the ofrtcer's orders, theforce must stop. LI/hen
determining if the force was objectively reasonable, necessary and proportionate, and therefore authorìzed, the following
An

guídelines will be applied:
Reasonøble: The reasonableness of a particular use-of-force is based on the totality of circumstances known by the fficer at the
time of the use-of-force andweighs the actions of the fficer against the rights of the subject, in light of the circumstances
surrounding the event. It must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable fficer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision
of hindsight.
Factors to be considered ín determining the objective reasonableness offorce include, but are not limited to:
. The seríousness ofthe crime or suspected offense;
, The level ofthreat or resistance presented by the subject;
, Whether the subject was posing an immediate threat to officers or a danger to the community;
. The potentíalfor injury to citizens, fficers or subjects;
. The risk or apparent attempt by the subject to escape;
. The conduct of the subject being confronted (as reasonably perceived by the fficer at the tíme);
. The time available to an ofrtcer to make a decísíon;
. The availabílity ofother resources;
, The traíning and experience of the officer;
. The proximity or access of weapons to the subject;
. Of/ìcer versus subject factors such as age, size, relative strength, skill level, injury/exhaustion and number of fficers
versus subjects; and
. The environmentalfactors and/or other exigent circumstances.
The assessment of reasonableness must embody allowance þr the fact that police fficers are often forced to make split-second
decisions-in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving aboul the amount offorce that is necessary in a

particular situatíon. The reasonableness inquiry ín an excessive-þrce case ís an objective one: the quest¡on ís whether the of/icers'
actions are objectively reasonable in light ofthefacts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying
intent or motivation.

Form

l.1l

Rev.2/07

PageT of9

 Necessary: Oficers will use physical force only when no reasonably ffictive alternative appears to exist, and only then to the
degree which is reasonable to ffict a lawful purpose.
Proporlional: To be proportional, the level offorce applied must reflect the totality ofc¡rcumstances surrounding the immediate
situation, including the presence of an imminent danger to fficers or others. Officers must rely on training, experience, and
assessment ofthe situation to decide an appropriate level offorce to be applíed. Reasonable and soundjudgment will dictate the
force option to be employed. Proportionalforce does not requíre fficers to use the same type or amount offorce as the subject.
The more imntediate the threat and the more líkely that the threat will result in death or serious physical injury, the greater the
level offorce that møy be proportional, objectively reasonable, and necessary to counter ¡t.

The Named Employee used de minimus force to physically detain Mr. Wingate during an unjustifie d Terry
stop. Specifically, she held Mr. Wingate's left hand on the hood of the patrol car while she searched his
pockets. Because the Named Employee lacked authority under SPD policy to detain Mr. Wingate, any use
of force, even de minimus, failed to comply with Ll00(l) which says that force may only be used to "bring
a person or situation under control ... to achieve a law enforcement objective".

In addition, before the Named Employee physically took hold of Mr. Wingate's left arm, a second officer
had arived at the scene and had immediately and successfully deescalated the situation and relieved Mr.
Wingate of his golf club. There was no apparent need for the Named Employee to reasseft her control of
Mr. Wingate and lay hands on him. In addition to being a further example of escalating behavior by the
Named Employee, this de minimus use of force was unnecessary.
The preponderance ofthe evidence supports the conclusion ofsustained.

Alleeation #5
Section 5.140 (2) of the Seattle Police Manual in effect at the time of the incident (enacted 0113012014):

lfill

Not Engøge in Bías-Basetl Policíng
Employees shall not make decisions or take actions that are influenced by bias, prejudice, or discriminatory intent. Law
enforcement and investigative decisions must be based upon observable behavior or specific intelligence.

Officers

Of/ìcers may not use discernible personal characteristics in determining reasonable suspicion or probable cause, except as
a suspect description.
Employees shall not express-verbally,
dis cerni b le pers onal c haracteris tics.

part of

inwriting, or by other gesture-any prejudice or derogatory comments concerníng

No employee shall retaliate against any personwho initiates or provides information or testimony reloled to an investigation,
prosecution, OPA complaint, litigation or hearings related to the Department or Departmental employees, regardless of the context
inwhichthe complaint is made, or because of suchperson's participationinthe complaintprocess as avictim,witness,
investigator, decision maker or reviewer.
Employees who engage in, ignore, or condone bias-based policing
Superttisors and commanders who

fail

will

be subject to díscipline,

to respond to, document and review allegations of bias - based policing

will

be subject to

díscipline.

The biased policing policy addresses the decisions of, and actions taken by, a police officer, not the beliefs
of an officer. A preponderance of the evidence shows that the Named Employee's decisions and actions
were in violation of this policy.
Here, the decision made was to approach Mr. Wingate because, as she was driving away from him, the
Named Employee observed Mr. Wingate holding his golf club with one hand and swinging it back to his
side while looking in the Named Employee's direction with a furrowed brow which she perceived as
"angry." The Named Employee's explanation of the initial triggering event (before the "angry" stare) has
altered over time, from inclusion in the police report that she saw him swing a golf club at her car to the
statements in her second OPA interview, where she stated merely that she saw movement out of the corner

Form

l.l

I

Rev.2/07

Page 8

of9

 of her eye and, on a busy City street in summer with a nearby construction site, assumed that a clang she
heard was Mr. Wingate hitting a stop sign with his golf club after trying to hit her police car.
Several actions were taken based on bias. First, the Named Employee approached Mr. Wingate in an
extremely aggressive and confrontational fashion at the outset, with no adjustment in tone or manner
whatsoever once it became clear that Mr. Wingate was having trouble hearing her and that he was confused
by her request for him to put down his golf club and her reference to it as a weapon. She also ignored his
seemingly genuine confusion when she stated that he had swung the golf club at her and continued
addressing him aggressively. Second, she insisted on moving forward with official charges when there were
other possible options available to her, as described above. The Named Employee used no slurs and never
mentioned race or any other protected category in the encounter. However, in her own written and spoken
words, the Named Employee provided evidence which indicates that that she views events in her workplace
in a racially biased manner and that her racial views impact her reaction to the work of the police.
The Named Employee's Facebook posts about "black racism" toward white police officers provide some
support for this finding. However, her two statements to OPA clearly indicate that she allowed her
perception of the protected category of others to influence how she acted in the field with Mr. Wingate and
generally perceives law enforcement actions and interactions, Not only did the Named Employee fail to
acknowledge in hindsight that her tone/approach to Mr. Wingate might have contributed to the escalation of
this incident, she instead indicated that his age and gender - and his subsequent reaction to a female police
officer based on his age and gender - were the likely reason for her failure to get him to voluntarily turn
over the club. Additionally, the named Employee made the impact of her racial biases on her perception of
law enforcement actions clear when she, unprompted, described how she viewed the resolution of the
Wingate arreslcharges, namely as an example of the impact of racial bias in her workplace by African
Americans against white officers. She specifically refers to'oguess who" - a judge and chief who are black not supporting white officers (meaning herself). When an officer's perceptions are so deeply influenced by
perceived black mistreatment of white officers, it is evidence that her actions towards Mr. Wingate were
impacted by racially biased assumptions about him; likewise, her views indicate that race impacted the
aggressive manner in which she approached him from the outset and escalated what could have been a
calm interaction (as evidenced by the later officers on the scene) into one where charges were brought
based on a situation which she had created.

The preponderance ofthe evidence supports the conclusion ofsustained.

Form

l.ll

Rev.2/07

Page 9

of9