Transcript of the Testimony of Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Shoblom v. King County No. 15?2-09687-7 SEA Court SeattleITacoma, Washington scheduling@byersanderson.com One Union Square: 600 University Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101-4128 1 Seattle: 206 3405-1316 Toll Free: 800 649?2034 Old Town District: 2208 North 30th Street, Suite 202 Tacoma, WA 98403?3360 Tacoma: 253 627-6401 Fax:':253 383-4884 3 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY AMY SHOBLOM, individually, DIANA NEFF, individually, LOU CABALLERO, individually, Plaintiffs, No. 15?2?09687?7 SEA VS. KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of Washington State, Defendant. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SHERIFF JOHN W. URQUHART October 3, 2016 Seattle, Washington Byers Anderson, Inc. Court One Union Square 2208 North 30th Street, Suite 202 600 University St. Tacoma, WA 98403 Suite 2300 (253) 627?6401 Seattle, WA 98101 (253) 383?4884 Fax (206) 340H1316 scheduling@byersanderson.com (800) 649?2034 1 Serving Washington's Legal Community since 1980 Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington (AM (.003 APPEARANCES For the Plaintiffs: Julie A. Kays Evan T- Fuller Connelly Law Of?ces 2301 North 301h Street Tacoma, WA 98403 253.593.5100 253.593.0380 Fax For the Defendant: Steven H. Winterbauer Winterbauer Diamond PLLC 1200 5th Avenue Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 206.676.8440 206.676.8441 Fax mm?dmt?th?F BE IT REMEMBERED that on Monday, October 3, 2016, at 506 2nd Avenue, 33rd Floor, Seattle, Washington, at 9:30 am, before Micheile R. Giangualano, Certi?ed Court Reporter, appeared SHERIFF JOHN W. URQUHART, the witness herein; WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were had. to wit: THE VIDEOGRAPH ER: We are now on the record. Please note that the microphones are very sensitive and may pick up whispering and private 13 Steven@Winterbaueidiamondmm 14 conversations. Please turn off all cellphones or place 14 15 them away from the microphones as they can interfere with 1: 16 the deposition audio. The recording will continue until 17 Also present. Diana Neff 17 all parties agree to go off the record. 18 Eatty CSheliecigi1 Tr Off 18 My name is Michael Hehenkamp. videographer for we 19 Byers Anderson, Court Reporters Videolocated at 600 University Street. Suite 2300, in SeattleVideographer? Byers Anderson] Inc. 21 Washington. Today IS October 3rd, 2016, and the time IS Court Reporters Video 22 now 9:30 am. 2; 23 This is the videotape deposition of John Urquhart, 23 24 being taken on behalf of the plaintiff in the case of :2 25 Shoblom versus King County. The cause number is Page 2 Page 4 1 EXAMINATION INDEX 1 15?2-09687-7, space, SEA. This deposition is being held 3 BY: 6 PAGE NO- 2 at 500 Second Avenue, Suite 3300, in Seattle. Washington. 4 3 Will the attorneys please introduce themselves for 5 4 the record_ 6 EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. . Exhibit No. 1 3-page Performance Plan from 10 5 June Kays' 0? bahalf 0f Sheriff Reichert to Sergeant 5 the plaintiffs. 8 Urquhart dated 12l16103. 7 . 9 Exhibit No. 2 1-page book cover photocopy, 17 FULLER Evan Funer? on behalf Of Driving Fear out of the 3 the plaintiffs. 10 Workplace. 9 MR. WINTERBAUER: Steve WinterbauerExhibit No. 3 32-page Background Unit Manual 56 dated Exhibit No. 4 3-page BIueTeam Follow-Up 74 Report interviews of Mr. Triller and Mr Liu conducted by Captain Anderson. Exhibit No. 5 2?page typed notes by Captain 123 Anderson. Exhibit No. 6 2?page Internal Investigations 169 Follow-Up Report interview of Mr. Triller and Deputy Liu conducted by Mr. Mullinax. Exhibit, No. 7 2?page color printout from the 183 King County Sheriff's Office sex offender site of Mr. Titus. 3 Exhibit No. 8 1?page email from Sheriff 189 Urquhart to Sergeant Neff dated i 8i19i14, Re: FBI Interview. Page 3 22 23 24 25 on behalf of Defendant. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: And would all others please introduce themselves for the record. MS. NEFF: Diana Neff, Plaintiff. MR. WINTERBAUER: You should introduce yourself for the record. MS. SHELLEDY: Oh, Patty Shelledy, I believe for the sheriff's of?ce. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The court reporter today is Michelle Giangualano. Please swear in the?- witness and proceed with the deposition. 3 SHERIFF JOHN W. URQUHART, having been ?rst duly sworn by the Certi?ed Court 1 Reporter, testi?ed as follows: Page 5 2 (Pages 2 to 5) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington 1 EXAMINATION 1 involve your mistreatment of women? 2- BY MS. KAYS: 2 A There were men and women that were involved in the 3 Good morning, sir. Please state your ?rst and last name 3 complaints. 4 and spell both for the record. 4 Who are the names of the individuals that brought the 5 A John Urquhart, J-o-h-n, U-r-q-u-h-a-r-t. 5 allegations? 6 And, sir, how are you employed? 6 A Erin Garski; Tom Calabrese, C-a-l-b-r-e-s-e; Scott 7 A By King County. I am the King County sheriff. 7 Richter, R-i-c?h-t-o-r; Mary Syson, S-y-s-o-n, Liz Lawee, 3 And how long have you held the position of sheriff? 8 L-a-w-e-e. There may have been others. That's the only 9 A Since November of 2012. 9 ones I remember. 10 Is that an elected position? 10 Do you recall that the women complainants had expressed 11 A Yes. 11 concerns about the manner in which you treated them as it 12 Prior to serving as sheriff, did you work as a King 12 relates to their abilities to perform the work? 13 County sheriffs deputy? 13 A Yes. 14 A I did. 14 And they also made allegations regarding, in their words, 15 And can you tell me how long did you work as a King 15 sexist comments that you made over the air, over the 16 County sheriffs deputy? 1?5 radio during a call? 17 A Full-time from March of 1988 until January of 2012. 17 A Yes. 13 What was the highest rank that you earned during that 13 Who was the major at Southwest at the time. or the head 19 time period? 19 of Southwest? 20 A Sergeant. 2? A Bill Dickinson. 21 When did you attain the rank of sergeant? 21 Who was Scott Summers? 22 A April of 2000. 22 A He was a major. 23 Where were you positioned when you -- after obtaining the 23 Where? 24 rank of sergeant, where did you go after obtaining the 24 A i think at City of SeaTac. I am not sure. 25 rank of sergeant? 25 During the course of this investigation of you as Page 5 Page 8 1 A Precinct 4 in Burien. 1 sergeant while you were at Precinct 4, was Major Summers, 2 How long were you a sergeant at Precinct 4 in Burien? 2 in fact, not involved in providing you with a corrective 3 A A total of about two years. 3 counseling memo at the end of it? 4 During that two-year period, were you on administrative 4 A Yes, he was. 5 leave? 5 As you -- today where is Major Summers? 5 A Yes. 6 A He is a captain at Precinct 3 in Maple Valley. 7 How long were you on administrative leave? 7 Was Major Summers then -- turning back to the time period 3 A Three to four months. 3 you were a sergeant at Precinct 4 in Burien, was Major 9 What was the basis for you being on administrative leave? 9 Summers a part of your chain of command? 10 A was the subject of an internal investigation. 10 A I don't think so. 11 And the internal investigation allegations generally were 11 Can you explain to me why he would have been the signator what? 12 on a corrective counseling memo for you then? 13 A There were several of them, and I don't remember the 13 A No. specifics of each individual one. 14 You don?t have an explanation as to why? 15 0 Several allegations? 15 A ldon?t know why he was. 15 A Yes. 15 What is your relationship like with Mr. Summers today? 17 Do you recall the general allegation. not speci?cally 17 A Captain Summers? 13 the general orders manual, but the nature of the 18 Yes. 19 allegations? 19 A Fine. . 20 A How I was hanttling my job as sergeant in general. 20 How often do you have interaction with Mr. Summers? 21 With respect to women; correct?_] 21 A Captain Summers, oh, probably 22 A No. 22 In what capacity? 3 23 So it's your contention that the complaints that were captain at the precinct, so 24 brought against you or allegations that were brought 24 employer-employee relationship. 25 against you while you were sergeant at Precinct 4 did not 25 During your tenure as sheriff to date, have you has Page 7 Page 9 3 (Pages 6 to 9) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlefTacoma, Washington 11 12 13 Mr. Summers been subjected to an IIU investigation or investigations? A I don?t know. I don't think so. 0 Have you and Mr. Summers had -- excuse me -- Captain Summers had conflict since you have been in the sheriff's -- the position of the sheriff? A No. MR. WINTERBAUER: Thank you. (Exhibit No. 1 marked for identification.) (By Ms. Kays) Sir, I have handed you for identi?cation, Exhibit 1. Would you please take a moment and look at that document? What was your current assignment at that time of December 16th of 2003? A Media relations of?cer. And that, in fact, is a position that you went to, sir, after this investigation was concluded; correct? A Not immediately but eventually, yes. Where did you go in between, then, the completion of the investigation and before the media relations office? A Precinct 4, SeaTac. And what did you do at Precinct 4, SeaTac? A was a patrol supervisor. Were you a sergeant? A Yes. 14 A Okay. 14 And just to be clear, when the -- when the allegations 15 Are you familiar with this document, sir? were made, was that at from deputies at SeaTac or 16 A Yes. 16 deputies at Southwest? 17 And describe for me generally what Exhibit 1 is. 17 A Both. 18 A It's a performance plan. 13 Did you spend two sessions with Karen Crowder? 19 For whom? 19 A I did. 20 A For me. 20 And describe for me Karen Crowder. 21 And the date of the performance plan is? 21 A In what way? 22 A September 16th of 2003. 22 Where did you attend the sessions with her? 23 I think you mean December 16th? 23 A Once at her house and once at a Tully's. 24 A What did I say? 24 What was the subject matter of your sessions? 25 You said September. 25 A Leadership and supervision. Page 10 Page 12 1 A Yes. I mean December 16th of 2003. 1 What were the areas you discussed regarding leadership? 2 And the sheriff who gave you the performance plan was? 2 A My abilities as a leader, what makes a good leader. 3 A Sheriff Reichert. 3 And what was your takeaway from your discussions with 4 And this is the performance plan that resulted from the 4 Ms. Crowder on the subject of leadership? 5 investigation we were just speaking of regarding your 5 A That i was a very good leader. 5 work as a sergeant at the Southwest precinct; correct? 5 What were the -- what was the subject of supervision 7 A That's correct. 7 between you and Ms. Crowder? 3 And at the time that you received this performance 3 A How to be a good supervisor. 9 9 What do you recall being the takeaway from that? NmU?l-lth-?U 18 improvement plan, one of the requirements, if you look at the third paragraph on Page 1, it says i am just going to read it and ask you some questions. Quote, Because your current assignment does not involve supervising others, this plan will not be implemented in its entirety until you are placed in an assignment where you do supervise others. You will be required to spend two sessions with Karen Crowder and read the books listed at the end of this memo by March 31st, 2004. Ms. Crowder is a professional counselor in the area of communication. You can get contact information from Captain Louie. Did i read that paragraph correctly? A Yes. At the time that you were given this performance plan, the ?rst sentence reads: Your current assignment does not involve souping -- supervising others. Page 11 22 23 24 A I could be a better supervisor. What were the de?ciencies that you discussed in your ability to supervise? A I really don't remember speci?cally. Have you ever been required to attend training before this incident -- A No. -- of this sort? A No. And this was one-on?one with you and Ms. Crowder; correct? A Yes. i i And you were it was mandated by then your sheriff Mr. -- Sheriff Reichert to attend these two sessions with Ms. Crowder? 25 A Yes - actually, it wasn't two sessions. It was as many Page 13 4 (Pages 10 to 13) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers 8: Anderson Court Seattlel'l'acoma, Washington sessions as Karen Crowder thought necessary. - Okay. It says in the second -- or excuse me -- the third paragraph, quote, You will be required to spend two sessions with Ms. Crowder. Is it your testimony that, at Me. Crowder's election, she could have required you to attend more than two sessions? A Yes. Minimum of two sessions. Ms. Crowder is a woman? A Yes. And describe for me how you got along with Ms. Crowder. A Just?ne. Do you recall describing Ms. Crowder to others as a fat. lazy slob? A Absolutely not. So you are denying that you made those statements? A Yes. So when we bring witnesses in to testify that. in fact, you did, you are calling those witnesses liars? A No, I am not. And what are you saying then? A I am saying i never made those comments(By Ms. Kays) If you turn to the last page of Exhibit 1, it says "Recommended Reading." Do you see that? A Yes. And the books that you were required to read were The One Minute Manager; correct? A Yes. And a book called, quote, Driving Fear out of the Workplace; correct? A Yes. And did you read those books? A I did. When you what was your takeaway from the book Driving Fear out of the Workplace? A Oh, I don't remember speci?cally. Did you learn anything from reading that book? A Sure. What? A I don't remember anything speci?cally, but there is always a takeaway from something like that, from a management book. And this was 13 years ago, Have you ever been required to read -- by virtue of a 23 So it will be a swearing contest between you and 23 directive from the sheriff, have you ever been required 24 witnesses that will testify that you made that statement? 24 to read additional books -- 25 MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. Counsel 25 A No. Page 14 Page 16 1 is being argumentative. 1 other than these two? 2 (By Ms. Keys) Go ahead. Answer the questionnot sure what a swearing contest means. 3 Pardon me? 4 Sir, how many times have you testi?ed in court? 4 A No. 5 A Many times. 5 Do you have still have that book today? 6 Right. And you give one account of it, of events 5 A Unlikely. 7 A Under oath. 7 Did you keep it for some time? 3 -- right? 3 A I did. 9 Yeah. Like you are today; right? 9 And it's true, is it not, that what you 10 A Yes. 10 MS. KAYS: Well, give you a copy of 11 And we bring witnesses in to give their account of events 11 this. 12 that differs from yours, it becomes a swearing contest. 12 (Exhibit No. 2 marked for 13 is it not? 13 identification.) 14 MR. WINTERBAUER: Sarne objection. 14 MR. WINTERBAUER: Thank you. 15 Argumentative. 15 (By Ms. Kays) Exhibit2. Does that look likea copy of (By Ms. Kaye) Go ahead and answer the question. A I don't agree with your characterization of a swearing contest. I assume both of us will be under oath and I'll tell What I -- my side of the story and they'll tell their side of the story. don't call that a swearing contest. I have never heard that term before. And we'll let the jury decide who is telling the truth. A Yes. MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. Argumentative. Page 15 the book? A Yes. Okay. And then I've got the actual book right here. Does that look like a copy of the book? A Yes:- Andtit's true. is it not. that you used that book that you were required to read as a condition of a performance improvement plan into allegations brought by both men and women at Precinct 4, that you used that book as a doorstep, did you not? Page 17 5 (Pages 14 to 17) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattleITacoma, Washington A I did not. - And do you recall telling more than one sheriff's of?ce employee that this was the best book that you ever received; you used it on a daily basis as a doorstop. Do you recall saying words to that effect? A No. So is it your testimony that you never used the book, driving fear out of a workplace -- out of the workplace as a doorstop? A Yes. And if witnesses testify to the contrary? quoteiunquote? A No. Did you call the women crybabies? A Perhaps. And why would you refer to women as crybabies? A Notjust the women. MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. THE WITNESS: Sorry. MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. The question mischaracterizes his testimony. Go ahead. 12 A I guess we'd be in a swearing contest. 12 (By Ms. Keys) Go ahead and answer. 13 This performance improvement plan, Exhibit 1. when you 13 A [f I did call them crybabies, I was not referring to the 14 became media relations of?cer for the sheriff, where did 14 women. I was referring to the entire group. 15 you display the performance improvement plan? 15 The entire group, meaning the women and men? 16 A Where did I display it? 15 A Yes. 17 Uh-huh. 17 And why would you call them crybabies for bringing a 13 A Nowhere. 13 complaint? ?9 You don?t recall having it thumb-tacked up on a bulletin 19 A I think that they were mistaken in their complaint. 20 board or visible in your office? 20 And how were 21 A No. That never happened. 21 A At least in parts of it anyway. 22 So if we bring witnesses in that will testify to the 22 How were they mistaken in the complaint? What's your -- 23 contrary, it will be a swearing contest on that too? 23 what?s your belief on the mistaken nature of their 24 A Yes. 24 complaint? 25 It's true -- have you referred to the performance 25 A I think what I was asking them to do is the prerogative Page 18 Page 20 1 improvement plan and the training that you were required 1 of a sergeant. It was the direction that I was given, 2 to undertake as, quotelunquote, bullshit? 2 and in some cases itjust was untrue. 3 A No. 3 What was untrue? 4 Did you agree with the performance improvement plan? 4 A That I required only women to take rape cases, thatl 5 A Yes. I think it would have been valuable had I gone back 5 sent males for backup when none were needed, that sort of 5 as a patrol -- patrol sergeant. 6 thing. 7 You never returned to the position of patrol sergeant 7 Do you deny the fact that you did not believe that two 3 after you became the media relations officer; correct? 3 women could work Vashon by themselves? 9 A That's correct. 9 A I do deny that. 10 You gave me the names of many of the individuals who have 10 So you deny many of the main allegations in that 11 brought this complaint against you. And my question to 11 complaint? 1-2 you is: Have you not, in fact, referred to the women 12 A Yes. 13 as -- that brought this complaint against you as, 13 And you?ve read the IIU investigation into that case? 14 quotefunquote, crazy bitches? 14 A Yes. 15 A No. Idon't believe I ever said that. 15 Including the witness statements? 15 Did you say words to that effect? 16 A I don't think I read all the witness statements. 17 A Unlikely. 17 Which witness statements did you read? 13 Were you angry with the fact that the women at Southwest, 18 A I don't know. This was back in 2003, 2004. 19 along with some men, had brought this complaint against 19 You honestly did not review those statements prior to 20 you? 20 throwing your hat 'in the ring for sheriff? 21 A Iwas angry at ?rst, yes. 21 A I did not. - 22 Did you call the women who brought this complaint against 22 Those issues. the issue of this underlying complaint, 23 you at Southwest, quotelunquote, crazy women? 23 did, in fact, come up in your campaign for sheriff; 24 A No. 24 correct? 25 Did you call the women, those bitches, end -- 25 A Yes, it did. Page 19 Page 21 6 (Pages 18 to 21) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers 8: Anderson Court SeattleITacoma, Washington you think that you are a good supervisor of women? A I think I am a good supervisor of everybody. And by making that statement, you believe that you are a good supervisor of women? A Yes. Did you learn from that, reviewing that -- reading that book excuse me -- Driving Fear out of the Workplace, that one of the principles of that book is to not lead with fear? Correct? A Yes. To not create fear in the workforce; right? A Yes. Do you believe that you embody that principle that is set forth in that book? A I do. So it's your testimony that you don't lead the sheriff's organization with instilling fear in your employees? A Yes. That's my testimony. Returning to the I am focusing on the women who mmeM?ko 17 And did you believe Ms. Rahr, Sue Rahr, was supportive of you? A Yes. Have you ever referred to Sue Rahr as, quotelunquote, a bitch? A No. So if we have witnesses that will testify that you, in fact, did, it will be a swearing contest between between you and that witness? A Yes. When was the last time you spoke with Ms. Rahr? A Couple of months ago perhaps. Probably two months ago. And what was the subject matter of your conversation? A ldon't know. You don't know? A No. I don't remember, so I don't know. Was it concerning her position as head of the Criminal Justice Training Commission? A No. 20 brought the complaint. Part -- part of the people that 20 Was it concerning lining up endorsements for your 21 brought the complaint against you are women. I am 21 reelection campaign? 22 focusing on the women who brought the complaint against 22 A No. 23 you while you were a sergeant at Southwest Precinct. 23 So you don?t -- as you sit here today, you can?t tell us 24 And you also referred to those women, did you not, 24 what you had a conversation with Sue Rahr about? 25 as, quoteiunquote, a bunch of lesbiansPage 22 Page 24 1 A No. 1 MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. Asked 2 And also, quote, a bunch of dikes? 2 and answered. 3 A No. 3 (By Ms. Kays) Go ahead. 4 You deny making those statements? 4 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 5 A deny making those statements. 5 MR. WINTERBAUER: Yeah. Just pause 3 And if we bring a witness in that will testify to that, 5 just for a second in case I have an objection. you'll just say you deny making those statements? 7 (By Ms. Keys) Go ahead. 3 A Yes. 3 A I see her every month and at least, if not more 9 Was Sue Rahr involved in -- in part in conducting this 9 frequently, so I have no idea, no recollection of What investigation into the allegations of individuals at Southwest Precinct? A She had a role in the investigation, yes. And at that time do you recall what position she held? Was she in the -- was she the chief deputy -- or i think you call them deputy chief or was she in one of those titles? A She was the chief of field operations. Okay. A So she was the patrol chief. Do you recall having conversations with Sue Rahr about this investigation? A Yes. And in what capacity? A After it was all over. Not during the investigation, but after it was all over in subsequent years. Page 23 unit?n44 15 talk about. Have you ever spoken with Sue Rahr about Chris Barringer? A Yes. And what have you spoken with her about Mr. Barringer on? A Most recently was about three months ago and we talked about his abilities as an attorney. And describe for me what that discussion entailed. A He and I had gone down to the academy to lobby to have someone readmitted, and Sue Rahr was talking about what a greatjob that Chris had done and what a great attorney he was and what a good argument it made to get this woman readmitted to the academy who had been kicked out, unfairly kicked out, in our opinion. And what's the name of this woman? A I can't remember. You said this occurred approximately three months ago? Page 25 7 (Pages 22 to 25) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers 8; Anderson Washington 1 A About three months ago. Fuentes, lthink, is her last 1 unfair. 2? name. 2 in what regard? 3 And I take it she was a candidate from the sheriff's 3 A Because she was treated differently than the male that 4 department? 4 was involved. 5 A Yes. 5 What's the name of the male involved? 5 What was the nature of her being kicked out of the 6 A [don't know. 7 academy? 7 Was he a sheriff's deputy candidate? 3 A She -- they thought that she had lied in an investigation 8 A No. 9 they did. 9 Have you had any other conversations with Sue Rahr 10 is your understanding that the Criminal Justice Training 10 concerning Mr. Barringer? 11 Commission, if misconduct occurs during the course of a 11 A I don't think so. 12 candidate's stint in the academy, that they conduct their 12 Have you had any conversations with -- 13 own investigation to determine if misconduct occurredre-answer that as well. We have talked 14 A Yes. 14 about his time at the academy. Did you review the investigation? 15 And what was your talk about time at the academy about? 13 A I did. 15 A She had brought up to me what a great job he did, what a 17 How were you given access to the investigation? 17 good leader he was in his class, and how happy they were 18 A I think it was provided by Fuentes. 13 to have him in the class. 13 Had Ms. Fuentes gone through the academy with 19 What are the qualifications for an individual to 23 Mr. Barringer? 23 become -- to be able to go to the academythe police academy? 22 Is Ms. Fuentes now a commissioned deputy with the 22 Yep. 23 sheriff's department? 23 A They can have no felony convictions. They can have the middle of the academy. 24 misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor convictions involving 25 Do you conduct a parallel investigation when some one 25 moral turpitude. They have to complete a physical Page 26 Page 28 1 of your candidates is accused of misconduct while in the 1 ability test before they start, and there has to be a 2 academy. does the sheriff?s department itself conduct a 2 background - a general background investigation done 3 parallel investigation? 3 which involves a criminal history check, 4 A No. 4 examination, polygraph examination, and a -- basically a 5 Do you recall who the individual or individuals were that 5 health examination, I believe. 5 conducted the investigation for the academy? 6 Are you familiar with the background unit standard 7 A i think it was tac officer Ludwig. 7 operating procedures? 3 What was the allegation regarding her lying in the 8 A Not directly, no. 9 investigation? 9 Do you know that there is a -- I don't know if it's 20 10 A Whether she was involved in a sexual relationship with a 10 pages or more -- a standard operating procedure manual 11 class president. Let me correct that answer. Whether 11 for the backgrounding unit? Are you aware of that? 12 she was in a relationship with the class president. 12 A I am not aware of it, butl am not surprised. 13 Why did you correct it from sexual to relation, just 13 Would it be your expectation that the backgrounding unit 14 relationship? 14 and any individuals involved in the process of hiring a 15 A Because the entire investigation hinged around the word 15 prospective deputy to become a deputy sheriff in your 15 "relationship." 15 department. that they would follow those procedures? 17 Well, having reviewed the investigation. was it disputed 17 A Yes. 13 whether or not it was a sexual relationship? 13 Would there be a reason to deviate from those procedures? 19 A No. 19 A Perhaps. 20 And did Ms. Lud- -- Ms. Fuentes excuse me. Did - 20 What would those reasons be? - 21 Ms. Fuentes deny that she was involved in a sexual 21 A I am sure there are reasons. I don't knowtspeci?cally, 22 relationship with a class of?cer? 22 but there could be. 23 A She denied that she was in a relationship. The gist of 23 Have you been presented with a circumstance where you 24 the investigation was flawed because it was biased, 24 have had to deviate from the background unit procedures? 25 highly prejudicial towards Ms. Fuentes, basically just 25 A [don?t know. Page 27 Page 29 8 (Pages 26 to 29) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court Seattlel'l'acoma, Washington Well. let me ask my question a little differently. Have you followed the procedures that you set out and that are set out in the backgrounding unit standard operating procedure during the time period that you have been sheriff for each of the hirings that you have done of prospective candidates? A I have been presented with candidates that didn't necessarily ?t all of our -- our general criteria. I don't know if -- for a decision or at least a consensus decision. I don't know if that was involved in the background SOP or not because i have never -- I haven't seen it. What was the process you went through in order to be hired by the sheriff's department? A I took a civil service test. And I would like the sequence to the degree to which you can remember. A Okay. You applied obviously? A Applied, civil service test. And I don't remember what the order was at the time but I also took a physical ability test, a health exam, a polygraph. I am assuming candidate? A Yes. We do that now and i am just assuming we did it back then, but I don't know. I can't remember it specifically. All right. The civil service test. which you have said is required by state law, is a written test; correct? A Yes. And in order to get a score from the civil service for ranking individuals in terms of how they are -- the order in which they are to be hired, if you will, the civil service test, you get a score. What else do you get a score from to make a combined number? A Back then or now? Let's do back then and then now. A i don't know how they scored things back then. Okay. How about now? A Okay. Now you take a civil service -- now you take a civil service test and an oral board and that is combined into your ranking number to be hired as a police officer. And the ranking system is, to your knowledge, comprised of those two elements: the civil service written test and the oral board? 23 a criminal history was done, which I am not involved in. 23 A Yes. 24 I think that's it. Oh, and there must have been an 24 All right. And then the sheriff?s department will select 25 interview there somewhere along the line. 25 candidates from -- based upon their ranking? Page 30 Page 32 1 When you say civil service test, what does that meanpolice of?cer, yes. 2 it the, quote/unquote, oral board, or is it a written 2 To go to the academy? 3 test, or is it bothhired as a police of?cer. 4 A Probably was an oral board there as well. 4 To be given the offer so that they can then go to the 5 Is it your understanding, when you went through that, all 5 academy? 6 of those actions were completed before you went to the 6 A To be hired as a police of?cer. 7 academy? 7 So is it your testimony, then. that it doesn't matter 3 A I didn't get a chance to -- you asked me about the civil 8 when you take the civil service test? 9 service test. Civil service test is a written test 9 A No. 10 that's -- that King County, not the sheriff's of?ce, 10 That it can be after you have gone to the academy? 11 gives and is required by state law. 11 A In theory, yes. It could be. 12 So my back to my question, which is: The sequence 12 And where do you get the authority that says, in theory, 13 that you gave was that you applied, and i realize you may 13 you can take the civil service test after you have gone 14 have not been giving them in direct sequence, but is it 14 to the academy? 15 fair to say that everything you just testified to 15 A The civil service test is only -- only required if you 16 occurred before you went to the academy? 15 are going to do the job of a police of?cer. It has 17 A Yes. 17 nothing to do with going to the academy. 1?3 And your testimony is that the civil service test is a 13 My question to you was this though: Where do you get the 19 written test? 19 authority for saying that you can take the civil service 20 A Yes. 20 test after you have gone to the academy and not before? 21 And then there is also an oral board that you 21 A If you want to get hired as a police of?cer, you have to 22 participated in before going to the academy? 22 have a civil service test. 23 A I think so, yeah. 23 When -- 24 24 A And if you have already gone to the academy, that doesn't And the oral board is comprised of members of the sheriff's department questioning the prospective Page 31 matter. To be hired as a police of?cer, you have to Page 33 9 (Pages 30 to 33) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington take a civil service test, and we do that every single day with the lateral of?cers who never go to the academy from out of state unless they go to the equivalency academy, which is not the full academy. Okay. My question is specific though. Where is it that you get the authority? What document have you read, what conversation have you had with the civil service commission, where do you get the authority to say that a candidate does not have to take the civil service test before they go to the academy? A I can send anybody to the academy that I want to and that has nothing do with the civil service requirements. They are two separate processes. What is your understanding of what the requirements are for an individual, the statutory requirements for an individual to attend the academy? MR. WINTERBAUER: I will object to the extent it calls for a conclusion of the law. (By Ms. Keys) Go ahead. says. So it's your testimony that this is what state law says? A Yes. An individual has to pass a polygraph; correct? A No. They don't? A They do not. And where do you get your authority for that, sir? A State law. 0 And speci?cally what statute? A ROW 43 something. There is no passlfail in a polygraph. It?s oftentimes referred to that way in jargon, but essentially there is no pass or fail. it's up to the appointing authority to determine if there is any disqualifying factors that come up in the polygraph in the in the criminal history, with those exceptions I mentioned, and then the health exam. And so it's your testimony that an individual going 20 MR. WINTERBAUER: Go ahead. 20 through the hiring process for King County is required to 21 THE WITNESS: They have to have a 21 take a polygraph. but whether or not they pass the 22 criminal history done. And I have already mentioned the 22 polygraph is not -- is not a disqualifying factor for 23 disquali?ers. They have to have a 23 you? 24 examination. They have to have a polygraph. They have 24 A There is no pass or fail. it's what the polygraph 25 to have a -- and I believe they have to have a health 25 reveals. Now, clearly they can take a polygraph and Page 34 Page 36 1 examination. 1 there will be disqualifying events that come up in that 2 (By Ms. Kaye) They have to pass a 2 polygraph. 3 examination; correct? 3 What's a "disqualifying event"? 4 A No. They have to have a examination. 4 A One of the most common is sex with animals. 5 There is no passlfail in that. 5 What about engaging in bribery? 6 is it your testimony that you would hire and send someone 5 A Depends on the circumstances. 7 to the academy who is un?t? 7 is it your testimony that if you review a polygraph or an 3 A No. 8 individual has a signi?cant response on the question of 9 So but it?s your testimony that they don't have to 9 bribery, that it depends on the circumstances as to 10 pass a examination? 10 whether or not you will hire them? 11 A Yes. 11 A [was answering my "depending on the circumstances" based 12 So they can fail a examination and you 12 on where this questioning was going. If your question 13 would still send them to the academy? 13 was, if somebody admitted in a polygraph that they 14 A There is no pass; there is no fail. 14 engaged in bribery, then that would be a disqualifying 15 So why even give the evaluation if that's 15 factor. 15 your position? 15 If they had a response to that question and that 17 A To ?nd out if they have any issues. And then the 1? question only, then it would determine -- it would depend 13 appointing authority can decide whether those issues are 18 on the circumstances. That's really what we are talking 19 relevant or not. 19 about here, as we both know. 20 And where do you get the authority for that. for saying 20 Butjust so I am understanding. as the elected sheriff, 21 that you don?t have to pass or it?s okay if you fall, 21 it?s your testimony that if an individual has a positive 22 that the appointing authority just gets to determine if 22 response for indicating deception on a question relating 23 this individual has any. quotelunquote, issues that you 23 to bribery. that that is not a disqualifying event? 24 are concerned with? 24 A That?s a hypothetical question that has not occurred and 25 A It's not a question of authority. It's what state law 25 you are trying to relate it to Mr. Barri nger's response Page 35 Page 37 10 (Pages 34 to 37) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers 8: Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington on the question of bribery. So I am going to be very -- - i am asking you a question. A Please let me ?nish. 50 I am going to be very careful and nuanced in my answer. if the report came back that somebody was deceptive regarding bribery, then I would be concerned. But if the report came back that the answer regarding bribery was inconclusive, then I would make a subjective decision if I knew about it at the time. Why do you have to be careful and nuanced in answering a question if it?s just the truth? 40 Who do you rely upon to review the results of the polygraph before you make a hire? A My HR director. Mr. King? A In this case, or at the current time, yes. 0 And has that policy recently changed, whereas before. you allowed the backgrounding detective to review the results of the polygraph? A As far as I know, that has not changed. Have you limited the access of individuals who can review polygraph results? MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. The 12 A I don't know if that's happened or not. 13 question is argumentative. 13 As you sit here today, who can review or has access to 14 (By Ms. Kays) My question was this, and I would 14 polygraph results - 15 appreciate an answer: If an individual takes a polygraph 15 A ldon't-- 15 and that individual is applying to the sheriff's 15 -- for prospective hires? 17 department to become a deputy and that individual shows a 17 A i don?t know. 18 signi?cant response to the question of bribery on the 13 Do you have access to them? 19 polygraph indicating deception, do you hire that person? 19 A I do not. 20 A It depends. 20 Does Mr. King? 21 If an individual has a significant response to the issue 21 A I assume he does, yes. 22 of drug usage, do you hire that person? 22 Does the backgrounding detective or detectives? 23 A It depends. 23 A I don't know. 24 if an individual has a significant response to involving 24 Does the commander during the commander?s interview? 25 themselves or being involved in domestic violence, do you 25 A Probably. Probably knows the results of the test, I Page 38 Page 40 1 hire that person? i would guess. 2 A It depends. 2 Does 3 If an individual has asignificant response to the 3 A No. 4 question of: Have you ever passed or excuse me. Have 4 Why not? 5 you ever failed a polygraph, do you hire that person? 5 A Because background or polygraph -- all backgrounds, in 5 A it depends. 6 general, but polygraphs as well, are private, are to be 7 How many officers have you hired to go to the academy who 7 kept within the backgrounding section or personnel 3 have not passed their polygraph? 3 section. 9 A Well, a polygraph is not passifail. 9 Do you know how long you are to retain that backgrounding 10 How many officers have you hired in which deception was 10 ?le for an individual? 11 indicated on their polygraph to go to the academy? 11 MR. WINTERBAUER: I am going I am 12 A [don't know. 12 going to interpose an objection to this entire line of 13 You want to guess? 13 questioning as being beyond the scope of the Court's 14 A No. 14 ruling on a protective order. I will allow you to keep 15 Under less than five? 15 going for a period but I want that objection on the 16 A I have no idea. 1?5 record. 17 Do you review the polygraph results for all candidates 17 MS. It's actually not. 13 that you hire to go to the academy? 18 (By Ms. Kaye) Go ahead. 19 A ldo not. 19 A Can you repeat the question, please. 20 You rely, in fact, on the backgrounding detective to 20 Do you know how long you are required to keep the 21 review those results; correct? 21 information in a given backgrounding ?individual? 23 You don't rely on the backgrounding detective to review 23 A No. 24 the results of a polygraph? 24 During the course of internal investigations, it's true, 25 A I do not. 25 is it not, that you have asked the backgrounding Page 39 Page 41 11 (Pages 38 to 41) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington detectives to review or to come forward and provide you with the background on individuals that you were investigating? A Occasionally we have looked at that, yes. Not provide me, but we have looked at it, yes. And the individuals that you have looked at that backgrounding file are? A I haven't looked at any backgrounding ?les. IIU has been given the access to those backgrounding files; correct? A I don?t think so. What -- was it not the case, when you investigated a deputy named Dan Murphy, that you authorized IIU to have access to the backgrounding ?le for Mr. Murphy? A That -- they may have gotten some information from Mr. King, but we certainly don't turn the background ?le over to them wholesale. And what about Mr. Holiwell? Same question. Authorize the ability for people to review information, sounds like through the sieve of Mr. King? A Certain information was made available in the Hoiiwell investigation. And do you recall if that, too. went through Mr. King? A I believe it did, yes. monument-neon; .x 11 A I think the only one that reviewed was Sergeant Neff's original complaint. Do you know Brian Barnes? A I do. When is the last time you either communicated with, verbally or in writing, Mr. Barnes? A I sent him a text last night. Prior to that point. when did you communicate with him verbally or in writing? A i received a text from him about a week earlier. He texts me every now and again. Have you -- you were in Washington. D.C.. in the past year? A Yes. And Mr. Barnes is currently located where? A I don't know. East Coast, but i don't know any more speci?c than that. Did you invite Mr. Barnes down to see you in Washington, D.C., while you were there? A No. Mr. Barnes ?led a claim or noti?ed the County of a claim. a legal claim, that he was going to pursue; correct? A While he was still employed? 25 Isn?t it true that it used to be that -- it used to be 25 Yes. Page 42 Page 44 1 the case, before a policy was changed, that IIU could 1 A I mean, is this something new, recently, or when? 2 have access to look at an individual's backgrounding ?le 2 No -- yes, while he was employed. 3 in the eSoft system? 3 A Yes. 4 A idon't think so. I would -- I would be surprised if 4 And that claim alleged what? 5 that was the case. 5 A I don't know. 5 Would you defer to individuals who worked in as to 6 You never reviewed it? 7 their testimony on that subject? In other words, if 7 A If I did review it, I don't remember it. I may or may 3 they, in fact, did access that and had the ability to 8 not have reviewed it. 9 access that? 9 A Yes, I would defer to that. What have you done to prepare -- MS. KAYS: Do you mind shutting that door? Sorry. MR. WINTERBAUER: Sure. (By Ms. Kays) What have you done to prepare for today's deposition in terms of the review of documents? A 1 reviewed several, many documents. What? A Gosh. Claims, tort claims, outside investigations, essentially a little bit of this, a little bit of that. I can't remember all of them. 1 Have you reviewed deposition testimony? A No. What were the outside investigation reports that you have reviewed? Page 43 24 25 And Mr. Barnes was the subject of numerous internal investigations by the department while he was a deputy, was he not? A Over the years, many. And some of those were instituted or -- instituted by you? A Under --w?niie was sheriff, yes. I don't remember my name being on any of them, but it?s a possibility. Do you -- you don't remember specifically if you were the complainant? A No. What about Mr. Barringer? Was he the complainant? -- A I don't know. -- . Would the A150 or the investigation itself bear that out? A Yes. Mr. Barnes's claim with the County was settled; correct? Page 45 12 (Pages 42 to 45) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers 8. Anderson Court ReportersNideoN-iot. 1ferencing SeattielTacoma, Washington mth?ommem-P-OJM?I-D A Yes. What was the amount of the settlement? A in the neighborhood of 130,000, I think. What other terms of the settlement were there? A I don't know. Wasn't Mr. Barnes, in fact, permitted to remain on the County payroll to use up either vacation time or sick time? A I don't think he was on the payroll. i think he was on the books but not getting paid. And being on the books has the bene?t of what? A I think he needed -- I think he needed ten years or something to -- for a pension or, yeah -- don't know. That kind of sticks in my mind. All right. Mr. Barnes?s claim was retaliation, was it not? A Oh, I think there were lots of claims, so i don't remember speci?c. That's probably one of them. Why did you -- did you have to authorize a settlement with Mr. Barnes? A No. Did you approve of the settlement with Mr. Barnes? A What do you mean by "approve"? I mean, sign off on it somehow? A If you mean approved, was I okay with it? Page 46 three two current and now one former detectives with the special assault unit; correct? A Yes. And those detectives are Marylisa Priebe-Olson, Janette Luitgaarden, and Belinda Ferguson?Parade: correct? A Yes. To your knowledge, how many of are all of those women still employed by King County? A I think Belinda Ferguson has retired. The other two are still employed and working, yes. And Belinda retiredI i believe, it was approximately in June; correct? A i don't know when but relatively recently. Certainly this year. I am not sure of the month. During the either during the pendency of that lawsuit or after that lawsuit i will just call it the SAU lawsuit, if that's okay? A What does -- what does pendency mean? Meaning while it was pending. A Okay. While the lawsuit was pending andfor after the lawsuit, did you not, in fact, refer to the SAU lawsuit as, quoterunquote. frivolous? A No. It's your testimony that you never used the word Page 48 Uh?h uh. A Yes. Was it my decision? No. Do I have to sign any paperwork on it? No. Whose decision was it if it wasn't yours? A The attorneys for King County for 120 -- 130,000, that would be a county executive approves it. You mean, because it was under a certain dollar amount, the executive approves it, or if it's over a certain dollar amount, the executive approves it? A Anything over a hundred thousand dollars, the county executive has to approve. Anything below a hundred thousand dollars, King County's risk management has authority to approve. Okay. A But claims are settled by King County, not the sheriff's of?ce, even though the complaint may be or the claim may be against the sheriff?s office. i can object. I can say yes. I can say no. I can say maybe. But ultimately it's their decision. in this particular case, I thought the decision was ?ne. With Mr. Barnes? A Yeah. We are still talking about Barnes? Yeah. A Yeah. I am anyway. You are familiar with a lawsuit that was brought by Page 47 "frivolous" to describe that lawsuit? A No. Because I don't think it was frivolous by any stretch of the imagination. Did you ever refer to the three plaintiffs in that lawsuit as, quotefunquote, those women? A i could have. Do you understand why a person may believe that to be a derogatory phrase with respect to those three senior detectives? A Yes. MR. WINTERBAUER: Object to the extent it calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: Sorry. (By Ms. Kaye) Go ahead and answer. MR. WINTERBAUER: No problem. You need to answer anyway, so it?s ?ne, as long as i get the objection on there. (By Ms. Kays) Can you answerthe question? A Yes. Then why would you say that? A Every now and again, things slip out that we regret that we should have thought better of. You have said 'it on more than one occasionI though, about the three senior detectives, have you not? A i could have. Page 49 13 (Pages 46 to 49) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers 8: Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington 1 And you have said it on more than one occasion about the 1 A Apparently. 2- three female senior detectives and it was in a derogatory 2 He talked about the size of his penis in the workplace? 3 manner, was it not? 3 A Yes. 4 A It certainly was not meant in a derogatory manner, butl 4 He had a picture of his young son or sons with Hooters 5 understand how it could be taken that way. 5 waitresses displayed in his of?ce? 5 With respect to the SAU lawsuit, there was an 5 A Yes. 7 investigation into the conduct of Tony Provenzo and Paul 7 He commented on the size of Belinda Ferguson's thighs and 8 Mahlum; correct? 3 rear end in the workplace? 9 A Yes. 9 A Yes. 10 And during the course of that investigation, you 10 He commented on the size of Belinda Ferguson's breasts as 11 ultimately reviewed it and made a determination as to 11 well as the size of Janette Luitgaarden?s breasts in the 12 what disciplineI if any, those two men would receive; 12 workplace? 13 correct? 13 A Yes. 14 A Actually, there was several investigations that were 14 He engaged in acts of retaliation against the women after 15 done. After I became sheriff, there was another 15 they came forward with their complaints? 15 investigation after the lawsuit was ?led anddon't know if that's true or not. 17 of that, a ?ndings and recommendation came to me, 17 He was founded for committing an act of retaliation 13 ?ndings that it was -- the complaint should be sustained 13 against Marylisa Priebe?Olson by 19 and a recommendation for discipline. 19 Do you recall that? 20 The recommendation for discipline for both Tony Provenzo 20 A No. 21 and Paul -- Paul Mahlum was strengthened and increased by 21 if the records bear that out, would you have any reason 22 your then Chief Deputy Anne Kirkpatrick. was it not? 22 to disagree with that? 23 A I don't knowdon?t have it right hereI but I will get it at 24 And for the totality of this conduct, the punishment that 25 the break. She recommended a higher form of punishment 25 you imposed against Mr. Provenzo was what? Page 50 Page 52 1 than you ultimately imposedtransfer. Is that it? 2 A That's -- that part is correct. I don't know when it 2 It was one day off without pay? 3 came to her, but when it came to me, it was higher than I 3 A Uh-huh. 4 ultimately levied. 4 Is that a yes? 5 And, in fact, what you levied against Mr. Provenzo, would 5 A Yes. That's a yes. I'm sorry. Uh-huh. 6 you agree that Mr. Provenzo's conduct was unconscionable? 3 And he was transferred from SAU during the course of the 7 A Yes. 7 investigation? 3 Would you agree that Mr. Provenzo's conduct was 3 A Let me back up, if could, on my answer. You said for 9 discriminatory and harassing of women in the workplace? 9 the -- your question was for the totality of the 10 A In the full scheme of things, from start to ?nish, yes. 10 circumstances, he received a day off without pay, and I 11 Is there any ambiguity, in your opinion, on the conduct 11 am paraphrasing and that's not correct. 12 that Mr. Provenzo engaged in. in the special assault 12 He received a day off for the conduct during the 13 unit? 13 180 days that we could prove, not for the totality of the 14 A In the full scheme of things, while he was the sergeant, 14 circumstances. I was exceedingly limited as to what I 15 no, there is no ambiguity whatsoever. 15 could do by the guild contract and the investigations 16 You mean Mr. Provenzo made remarks about the physical 15 that came before me. 17 anatomy of sexual assault victims; correct? 17 One of the ?rst things within the ?rst two or 13 A I believe so, yes. 13 three months that I did when became sheriff was 19 And Mr. Provenzo made comments about indicating that 19 transfer him out of that unit, and Paul lillahlum as well, 20 he would masturbate if some -- if the detective just said 20 because that hadn't happened. 21 the fact pattern in an SAU case just a little bit slower; 21 So when it ?nally came correct? 22 Loudermill for discipline, I did the best I could to set 23 A Yes. 23 the precedent for him, for the both of them going 24 Mr. Provenzo talked about his sexual prowess in the 24 forward, but I was handcuffed by what had happened 25 workplace; correct? 25 before. Page 51 Page 53 14 (Pages 50 to 53) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court Seattief?l?acoma, Washington 1 So we are talking about the totality of the 1 the sexual harassment training? 2- circumstances which was beyond belief for a sergeant in 2 A i did. i heard that. 3 the sheriff?s office. And no woman, no employee -- not 3 Do you remember hearing that people were making light of 4 just women. No employee should have to endure that. And 4 the sexual harassment training in a vocal manner, 5 I have been very clear about that. So I did what I could 5 including in front of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit? 5 do to ?x that problem after i became sheriffyour testimony that you could only impose -- that 7 MR. WINTERBAUER: Hey, Julie, let me 8 because of the 180-day deadline, meaning when the 3 know when you are at a good time for a break just because 9 department first learns of a complaint, they have 9 we have gone an hour and ten minutes. 10 180 days in which to complete an investigation and impose 1? MS. KAYS: Okay. We can take a break 11 punishment? Correct? 11 now. 12 A That?s correct. 12 THE VIDEOGRAPH ER: We are going off 13 And that's pursuant to the guild contract; right? 13 the record. The time is 10:40 am. 14 A That's correct. 14 (Recess from 10:40 am. to 15 And your testimony is, you were limited because there 15 10:53 am.) 16 were allegations that fell outside of that iBO-day 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the 17 period? 17 record. The time is 10:53 am. 13 A That?s correct. 18 MS. KAYS: Mark that, please. 19 And, therefore, you concluded that you could only impose 19 (Exhibit No. 3 marked for 20 one day off without pay to Mr. Provenzo? 20 identi?cation.) 21 A That was my conclusion. And i thought I would be lucky 21 MR. WINTERBAUER: Thank you. 22 to maintain that at arbitration. 22 (By Ms. Kays) Handing you Exhibit 3, Exhibit 3 is called 23 Ms. Kirkpatrick, your then chief deputy, recommended 23 "Background Unit," and it says, "There are no changes to 24 eight days off without pay. Does that sound right? 24 the Background Unit?s SOP at this time." 25 A That sounds right. 25 And SOP stands for standard operating procedures, Page 54 Page 56 1 And you declined to follow her recommendation; correct? 1 does it not? 2 A Correct. 2 A Yes, it does. 3 She also recommended things like sexual harassment 3 And it?s signed by the division commander who is -- it 4 training and a performance improvement plan, which you 4 appears to be Dan Pingrey?s signature? 5 did not adopt, did you? 5 A Yes. 3 A We were already doing sexual harassment training as a 6 And the date is 1026 of '15; correct? 7 result of the -- of the lawsuit, or we soon did. I 7 A Yes. 8 thought he did get a performance improvement plan. I 8 just want to refer you to Page 8 of 32 in the bottom 9 don't remember -- my understanding is that he did have 9 corner. 10 that. 10 Do you have that? 11 Did you attend the sexual harassment training that was 11 A i do. 12 conducted in response to or as a condition of the 12 Where it says "Disqualifying Conduct." And then it 13 settlement of the SAU lawsuit? 13 discusses state law standards. Under Item No. 2.1.3, it 14 A i did. 14 says, "Pass a polygraph given by a polygraph examiner." 15 And do you understand that there were multiple trainings 15 And it goes on to cite the correct? 16 held so that each member of the department could attend 15 A Yes. 17 it? 17 And then it says, under 2.1.4, "Pass a 18 A Yes. 13 exam." And then, in parentheses, it says Deputies Only; 19 Did you know that, at one of these sessions, in fact, 19 correct? 20 where Ms. Shelledy was presenting, that deputies were - 20 A Yes. 21 making fun of the subject matter and sitting on one 21 These are the standard operating procedures for the 22 deputy sat on another?s lap and said, oh, we can?t do 22 backgrounding unit, which is the unit responsible for 23 things like this anymore? 23 gathering information on prospective candidates; correct? 24 A ldon't remember that part about it. 24 A Yes. 25 Do you remember hearing that people were making light of 25 So is your testimony that the backgrounding SOPs don?t Page 55 Page 57 15 (Pages 54 to 57) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington 1 apply or are incorrect in some fashion with respect to 1 There are more circumstances -- are there only two 2- those two provisions that i just went over with you? 2 circumstances under which you mentioned it someone 3 A They certainly do apply. The only thing I would take 3 commits a crime in the answer and they indicate deception 4 objection -- that I would object to is pass a polygraph, 4 in the answer to that question or if they commit an act 5 pass a exam. 5 of domestic violence and they indicate deception in 5 And, again, that's jargon that's used on a regular 5 response to that question, are those the only two 7 basis, passlfailforth. But 7 circumstances under which someone would be disquali?ed 5 nowhere in state law, in the RCW that's citedsheriff? 9 WACO does it say that an applicant has to pass a 9 A No. 10 polygraph. That is just a term that is not used. 10 MR. WINTERBAU ER: Objection to the 11 And that's your testimony? 11 question. Mischaracterizes the prior testimony. 12 A Yes, that is my testimony. 12 0 (By Ms. Kays) And your answer, sir? 13 Okay. 13 A No. Those are not the only two examples. Theywerejust 14 A So it's -- you can call it a misprint, whatever you want 14 examples for clari?cation. 15 to call it. That's what it says but it doesn't literally 15 MS. KAYS: Steve, I?m sorry. Would 15 mean that. 15 you mind shutting that? 17 Okay. So your testimony is that the backgrounding unit 17 MR. Yeah. No problem. 15 SOP, Exhibit 3, that it is a, quoteiunquote, misprint to 15 MS. KAYS: ljust thought people were 19 say "pass a polygraph and pass a exam"? 19 behind doors, 29 A Misprint was a poor choice of words. it's a 25 MR. WINTERBAUER: No problem. 21 misstatement. 21 (By Ms. Kays) Did you ever -- on your performance 22 So are you going to go back and change this when you are 22 improvement plan, sir, other than attending the two 23 done with this deposition? 23 sessions with Ms. Crowder, reading the two books, did you 24 A Probably not. 24 undertake any other steps as a result-of that performance 25 So you'll let the misstatement or whatever you want to 25 improvement plan? Page 58 Page 60 1 call the word, use of the word "pass," sit there? 1 A No. 2 A Yes. Because generally people understand what that 2 Were you required to and just didn't complete them? 3 means, so it's a way to phrase it, but it doesn't 3 A No, i don't believe so. 4 necessarily literally mean pass or fail. 4 Other -- okay. I want to ask you about go back to the 5 Why wouldn?t you want to go back and change that if you 5 civil service test. If an individual takes a civil 5 think it's inaccurate and it doesn't accurately reflect, 5 service test, do they have to meet a speci?c score in 7 according to you, state law on the subject? 7 order to be eligible to be hired? 3 A Because it gives the background investigator something to 5 A Yes. i think we have a cutoff score somewhere along the 9 look for, to hang their hat on. It's just not that big a 9 line that, if they don't score high enough, they don't 10 deal i guess is why, what I would say. 15 end up on the list, or the de facto situation is, they 11 it's not that big of a deal in terms of how it's written 11 won?t get hired because they are too low on the list 12 because you ultimately look and determine whether or not 12 because of their score, i think. 13 the person should go to the academy? 13 Would you i deposed Chief Pingrey. Would you expect 14 A I don't look at that at all .unless it's specifically 14 that Chief Pingrey would have an understanding of that 15 brought to me, which occasionally happens. But for the 15 process, as he oversees the backgrou nding unit at this 15 most part, it's pretty clear. 15 time? 17 Clearly, if someone takes a polygraph and it turns 17 A Probably more than me, but I wouldn't consider him the 15 out that they, in fact, had been -- have committed a 15 de?nitive expert. 19 crime that comes out in the polygraph or they have 19 Okay. And the score itself would be reflected in some 20 committed an act of domestic violence that comes out in 20 written document that you have in the department? 21 the polygraph, then they fail the polygraph. 21 A in the department, yes. 22 But that's not a term. It's an inartful term that 22 And the civil service commission for King County would 23 we use all the time but is not reflective of how a 23 also be aware of that score? 24 polygraph works and is not re?ective of state law. 24 A Yes. They are the ones that come up with the score. 25 25 0 Okay. ijust want to make sure 1 am clear on your testimony. Page 59 Page 61 16 (Pages 58 to 6?1) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington mobwmmAwM?L A And the document. - Can an individual take the civil service test more than once in order to, say, average out their scores or try and do better? A They can't average out their scores, from my understanding. They can take the civil service test again and hope to get a better score, yes. Do they have to do that back-to-back, or do they have to wait a certain period of time? A I think there is a time frame they have to wait, I think. Do you have an idea or an understanding of what that waiting period is? A No. That, too, would be part of the civil service commission for documentation if you want to take it again or a second time? A It might be civil service. It might be us. Okay. A I don't know. How many times, to your knowledge. has Mr. Barringer taken the civil service test? A To my knowledge, once. And when did he take that? What was the date he took it? A I don't know. Did he take the civil service test before he went to the Page 62 in the SOP. Would it be in the SOP where the person goes to for the exam? A Iwouldn't think so. I thought we used more than one person, but I don't know. Okay. Did Mr. Barringer take a physical examination prior to going to the academy? A He did. And when was that taken? A I don't know. 0 Was it taken within weeks or months of attending the academy? A Yes. In the same calendar year that he went to the academy? A Yes. And who does King County send individuals to for that examination? A United HealthWorks. Did Mr. Barringer take a polygraph examination prior to going to the academy? A He did. And who gave him the examination? A Norm llil-a-t-z-k-e. And where is Mr. Matzke located? A In downtown Seattle. Do you know what building he is in? Page 64 mAmM-sowoowmm-r-wM?xo academy, or after? A After. How much long after he graduated from the academy? A I don't know. Did Mr. Barringer take his -- "take." Did he undergo a examination prior to going into the academy? A Yes. Do you know how how much time before he went to the academy he took it? A No. Did he take it during the same year that he went to the academy? A Yes. Within months or weeks of going to the academy? A Yes. Months? A Months or weeks. Did he take that examination or participate in that examination with the standard or the go-to person for King County? A Yes. And who was that person? A I don't know. I thought I reviewed like Dr. Park or something like that Page 63 mth?kDCDOJ-?dmm-P-mM?ho A I do not. Do you know why Mr. Barringer did not take a polygraph with your in?house polygrapher, Mr. Brenson? A Yes. Why? A Because I don't -- I didn't at the time trust the background investigators or the personnel unit to keep that information con?dential as is required because clearly his first polygraph leaked out. Why do you say "clearly his ?rst polygraph leaked out"? A Because Tiffany Atwood prepared a memo and gave it to other people, and other people talked to the background unit and found out about Barringer?s polygraph. So I didn't -- frankly, I just didn't trust the unit to keep it quiet. I Why would it matter if he -- if he passed the polygraph? A It matters because a polygraph under state law is con?dential. It's a background investigation. It goes in there. It's a personnel ?le that's confidential. It violates the general orders manual, for that sort of thing to be talked about, to leak out, to go to other people. It's important. We have aiready opened ourselves up. People in the sheriff's office has -- have already opened ourselves up to civil liability because that has Page 65 17 (Pages 62 to 65) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington 1 leaked out. And I didn?t want that to happen again, 2 - whether he passed it or failed it or it was inconclusive. 3 With respect to the memorandum that Ms. Ahuood wrote. you 4 reviewed that memorandum? 5 A Idid. 5 And how was it brought to your attention? 7 A Sergeant Stan Seo, S-e-o, brought it to my attention. 3 And Ms. Atwood?s memo, the concluding line, do you recall 9 what that concluding line wasWhen Mr. Seo brought the memo written by Ms. Atwood to your attention. was that contemporaneous with or shortly after she had authored the memo in terms of the date that you reviewed on it? A I don't know. Okay. Did you order Mr. Son to take any action after reviewing that memorandum by Ms. Atwood? A I did. 0 What did you order him Not talk about Ban-inger's polygraph or anybody else's 11 I?ll get it for you after lunch. but it was words to the 11 pOIygraph because they are con?dential. 12 effect of -- 12 Did you order him to give that direct order to 13 MR. I am going to 13 Ms. Atwood? 1.4 interpose an objection and designate any of these 14 A No, I don't think so. I might have. I don't think so 15 additional questions that have to do with 2012 Barringer 15 though- 16 polygraph as con?dential and outside the scope of the 16 DO YOU know Why Mr. 390 haVe Show? UP at Tiffany 1? protective order. 17 Atwood's house at 6:30, seven o'clock at night and given 13 You can answer it, subject to the con?dential 18 her an order? 19 designation 19 A I had no idea that he did. First I have heard of this. 20 M3. Okay. And i am just going 20 It wasn't at your directive? 21 to put on the record, the judge has ruled that this 21 A Abso'utely not ?01 t0 90 to her house, 22 information is not con?dential. Thejudge has -- I am 22 When did When did MF- Barringer take the 23 not asking. I am asking about the memo. i am asking 23 from mauke? 24 about what the concluding tine was in the memo. I am not 24 A weaks 0" months before he Start?! the academy' 25 running afoul of the Court-S order_ 25 Who arranged for him to take the polygraph with Page 66 Page 68 1 MR. Understand. 1 Mr. Matzke? 2 appreciate 2 A I did. 3 MS. KAYS: And 1 object to the 3 Who paid for the polygraph examination? 4 confidential designation, 4 A The sheriff's office. 5 MR- Okay. lappreciate 5 Why did you personally contact Mr. Matzke? 6 your position. 6 A Because I know that he had retired as a polygrapher. I 7 MS. KAYS: Okay. 7 didn't know if he was still in the business. I didn't 8 MR. Mine is different. 3 know if he still did employment -- preemployment 9 MS. KAYS: The -- I?ll just repeat the 9 potygraphs. And I knew that he had done it for us as 10 question, and I understand your objection. 10 preemployment for, I don?t know, 30 years or so. So he 11 {By Ms. Kaye) The concluding line of that memo was that 11 was a logical person to go to, highly credible. 12 she was worried that -- and i am paraphrasing -- worried 12 Did Mr. Matzke ask the standard questions during the 13 that if you certified Mr. Barringer to go to the academy, 13 polygraph that are asked of all candidates for deputy 14 that you would be falsely certifying him to do so based 14 sheriff? 15 upon the information that she reviewed. 15 MR. Objection. Lack of 15 Does that jog a -- jog your memory? 16 foundation. 17 A Yes. 17 (By Ms. Kays) Go ahead. 13 And Ms. Atwood was concerned about the fact that you may 13 A I don't know. 19 not have the complete picture of the information for 19 Who would know the answer to that? 20 Mr. Barringer. and that was would you disagree that 20 A Matzke. 21 that?s what she was trying to communicate in that memo? 21 Did you review the polygraph results? 22 MR. Object to the extent 22 A I did. 23 it calls for speculation. 23 Did you what did the documentation look like? 24 (By Ms. Kaye) Go ahead. 24 A I received a letter from him and the results of the 25 A I don't know what she was trying to convey in that memo. 25 polygraph; and he sent me the list of the questions that Page 67 Page 69 18 (Pages 66 to 69) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers 8: Anderson Court SeattlelTacorna, Washington 1 he had asked and the results of those questions. 1 my objection. 2- What were the questions that were asked? 2 (By Ms. Keys) What were the types of questions that were 3 MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. i am 3 asked that you reviewed in the correspondence from 4 actually this is beyond the scope of the protective 4 Mr. Matzke? 5 order. The protective order says speci?cally that you 5 A idon't remember. 5 can ask him whether he passed that test as that term is 5 is it your understanding that each deputy that is - 7 used. i think it's right in the order. 7 applies to the sheriff's department is asked a set number 3 MS. KAYS: Well, but -- okay. Well, 3 of questions on certain topics? 9 you can -- you can lodge your objection, but I don't read 9 MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. Asked 10 the order that narrowly. i am focusing on the second 10 and answered. 11 polygraph and that's how I read it. 11 THE WITNESS: My understanding is, 12 MR. WINTERBAUER: Well, for our 12 there is a set of questions that are asked during the 13 record, then, this is the order granting the motion for a 1'3 polygraph itself -- 14 protective order. It says the sheriff may be asked in 14 (By Ms. Kays) Uh-huh. 15 deposition whether Mr. Barringer met all the 15 A -- when you are actually hooked up to the machine. Also, 13 qualifications. including passing polygraph to become a 15 my understanding, lots of questions beforehand and lots 17 sworn officer. That's it. 17 of clarifying questions perhaps aftenlvards. 13 MS. And is your testimony that 18 When you reviewed the material from Mr. Matzke, did you 19 by my questioning what questions was he asked, that?s not 1-9 determine whether or not he had asked Mr. Barringer about 20 asking whether or not he met the qualifications? 20 whether or not he has ever been -- he has ever engaged in 21 MR. WINTERBAUER: Yeah. I think you 21 conduct such as an act of bribery or words to that 22 are squirreiing around it to get all other sorts of 22 effect? 23 information that. quite candidly, is protected by law 23 MR. WINTERBAUER: You can answer, if 24 from disclosure. And if I have to go back to the Court 24 you know. 25 again on protecting results, that's fine. But you can 25 THE WITNESS: Okay. I don't know. Page 70 Page 72 1 ask him generally -- 1 (By Ms. Kays) Did you inform Mr. Matzke that 2 MS. KAYS: i am not going to 2 Mr. Barringer had previously taken a polygraph? 3 understand 3 A I did. 4 MR. WINTERBAUER: I am not telling you 4 Did you give him the results of that polygraphjust telling my my objection. 5 A I don't have the results of that polygraph. have never 6 MS. KAYS: Okay. 5 seen them so there was nothing to give. 7 MR. WINTERBAUER: I am saying that my 7 You have never seen it? 8 interpretation of the order is that you can ask the 3 A No. 9 question or something to the effect of, did he pass and 9 Then why would you tell your investigators, Jesse 10 why do you think he passed, that sort of thing. But to 10 Anderson and Mike MullinaxI that you have reviewed both 11 go through and try to get the witness to speci?cally 11 polygraphs and he passed them both? 12 identify the -- the actual questions being posed, think 12 A What I said was that] was told, and, in fact, i was told 13 that's beyond the scope of the protective order. 13 in writing that he had passed the polygraph, those words, 14 MS. KAYS: And i disagree, that it 14 the ?rst polygraph. The second polygraph from Norm 15 doesn?t speci?cally preclude me from asking about the 15 Matzke, have a letter from him, saying that there were 1?3 polygraph itself. And obviously a polygraph is comprised 15 no issues with the polygraph. 17 of questions and that's the reason why disagree. 17 You mentioned that your understanding of the process by 13 MR. WINTERBAUER: Okay. Well, that?s 13 which a deputy goes through -- a preopective deputy goes 19 my objection. 19 through is, they are asked -- i am going to say a 20 MS. KAYS: Okay. Understand it. 20 standard list of questions, if you will, during the 21 MR. And, again, i 21 polygraph process; correct? . 22 have I have already designated this entire line of 22 MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. 23 questioning as confidential. I am going to allow him to 23 Mischaracterizes his testimony. 24 answer. I may interpose further objection but I am going 24 (By Ms. Kays) Go ahead. 01 to allow him to answer, subject to that designation and Page 71 25 A I am not really sure if it's a standard list of questions Page 73 19 (Pages 70 to 73) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers 8. Anderson Court Seattiel?l'acoma, Washington or not, or if it?s speci?c. I don?t know for an entry-level test. Don't know. Do you understand the back- -- so when a deputy applies. they are given a questionnaire, a backgrounding questionnaire, where they fiil out. all kinds of personal information and are responding to certain questions; correct? A Yes. And do you understand that the polygraph examination reviews that questionnaire or has their own separate questionnaire? A i don't know. 0 When you said that -- returning to the conversation that you had with Captain Anderson and Mr. Mullinax. you said, what i said was, you were told that he passed the first polygraph and the second polygraph? I want to make sure I got that right. A lam not -- I don't remember what exactly I told him, but I remember what I knew, and so I would expect it to be phrased that way or close to that at the very least. (Exhibit No. 4 marked for identi?cation.) 0 (By Ms. Kaye) Handing you Exhibit 4, this is a document 1 I'm sorry. There is -- at1530 hours. Do you see that? 2 A Yes. 3 Captain Anderson, aboutmidwaythrough. says in his report -- am on the third line down the sentence starts. "The Sheriff? at the far right-hand corner. It says. quote, The Sheriff told us that it. quote, never happened, end quote, reference the failed polygraph rumor. The Sheriff and Lance King told us that Chris Barringer did successfully pass not only the ?rst - his ?rst polygraph in 2012 but also his second polygraph he recently took to attend the academy. The Sheriff said that the information about the failed polygraph is a false rumor. end quote. Did I read that correctly? A Yes. You would have the expectation and have nothing. no reason to believe that Captain Anderson misquoted you in this in his report? A I have no reason to think he misquoted me. He is clearly paraphrasing what I said, so it's not -- it's not in quotes, so it's not direct quotes. He is paraphrasing. If you go to the second. the next paragraph down. and the 24 authored by Captain Jesse Anderson. And you know Captain 24 second sentence says. quote - it starts with "According 25 Jesse Anderson; correct? 25 to." Page 74 Page 76 1 A Yes. 1 Are you there? 2 At the time he authored this follow-up report 2 A Where it says, we then discussed? 3 MR. WINTERBAU ER: Counsel, has this 3 0 Yeah. 4 document been produced? It's not Bates?stamped. 4 A I am in that paragraph, yes. 5 MS. KAYS: Yes, it has. We produced 5 0 Right. So the second sentence starts. quote, According 5 it last week to you. 6 to Lance King only the background detectives, human 7 MR. WINTERBAU ER: is there a reason 7 resource reps and the sheriff may have access to 3 it?s not Bates-stamped like the others? 3 polygraph results. 9 9 i asked if can have access to these records for 24 25 MS. KAYS: Probably because I have a copy of before it was Bates-stamped. but I can have Marla pull out the Bates-stamped copy for you. MR. WINTERBAUER: I'd appreciate it at the lunch break. MS. KAYS: Sure. That's ?ne. (By Ms. Kays) If you look at the date on this statement, it says well, it says, Date Assigned 9115 of ?15; correct? A Yes. And then under "Follow-up Entries," these are Captain Anderson?s follow-up entries -- entries; correct? A Yes. And I want to refer you to the middle paragraph that's dated 915 of '15. Do you see that? A Yes. Page 75 the investigation because it will provide evidence to show that Mr. Barringer passed the polygraph test. in parentheses, plural, or S. parentheses. it will help dispel the rumor and eliminate any questions or concerns by others. The Sheriff and Mr. King said no, will not have access. The Sheriff said he knows for a fact that Mr. Barringer passed the polygraph and that i don?t need the results. His word is all that llU needs to address that issue. I mentioned that Detective Ahmood did raise a concern about Mr. Barringer's background, slash, .-. polygraph results with Stan Seo. Did I read that correctly? A Yes. When Jesse Anderson writes, quote. The Sheriff said he knows for a fact that Mr. Barringer passed the polygraph Page 77 20 (Pages 74 to 77) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington 1 and that I don't need the results. is that an accurate 1 A i don't know. 2? statement? 2 Did you have any process in selecting who would conduct 3 A Yes, as far as it goes. Again, paraphrasing, but I 3 the oral board examination for him? 4 don't --I don't take -- have any problem with the gist 4 A No. 5 of what it says. 5 Did Mr. Barringer go through the process of a commander?s 5 Okay. And so is it you testified that Mr. Matzke's 5 interview. as we walked through earlier, and what a 7 letter said that, quote, There were no issues with the 7 typical applicant would go through? 3 on the polygraph or with the polygraph. is that how you 3 A No. It wouldn't be appropriate. 9 recall him phrasing the letter to you? 9 Why wouldn't it be appropriate if you were hiring him 10 A Yes. 10 as or putting him through the academy? 11 Did you have lvlr. Matzke consult with the detective who 11 A Well, again, you are misstating the process. So the 12 performed the first polygraph? 12 process for the commander?s interview is after you passed 13 A i didn't ask him to. He certainly could have if he 13 all the requirements to be a deputy and are about to be 14 wanted to. 14 hired as a deputy. And Mr. Barringer was not about to be 15 But you did not provide him with the first polygraph 15 hired as a deputy. nor has a job offer been given to him 15 examination? 15 to be hired as a deputy. 17 A [didn't have it to provide. 17 Mr. Barringer has he testi?ed he has an unmarked 13 And you didn't have it because you didn't look for it, or 13 patrol car that he takes home and drives. 19 it wasn't in the system? Or help me understand that. 19 Is that your understanding? 20 A I didn't look for it. It wasn't in my files. He was 20 A It's not a patrol car. It's an unmarked car. It's a 21 aware of the results of that polygraph. 21 general purpose vehicle. 22 And it's your testimony that you received a letter from 22 Mr. Barringer testified that the individuals in the 23 SPD, stating that Mr. Barringer had passed the first 23 sheriff's department who have that, I?ll say perk or 24 polygraph? 24 benefit, are people who hold the rank of captain and 25 A No. i never said that. 25 above; is that correct? Page 78 Page 80 1 Okay. Then where did you -- so I don't -- the thing is, 1 A No. 2 I need to ask you about five questions that the judge 2 Sergeant and above? 3 said I can't ask about the ?rst polygraph. So I am just 3 A Everybody has a take-home car that are -- that are 4 going to put on the record that there is about five 4 commissioned. 5 questions I need to ask to ascertain your basis of 5 Does Mr. Barringers unmarked car have police equipment 6 knowledge and I am likely going to revisit that with the 6 in it? 7 judge, 7 A Yes. 3 MR. WINTERBAUER: Okay. I appreciate 3 A radio for responding to calls? 9 you stating that judge respecting it. My view is that 9 A Yes. 10 have already permitted multiple questions beyond the 10 A light bar and siren? 11 scope of the order. But I understand we disagree and we 11 A Has a siren. No light bar as such. 12 will take it up at the appropriate time. 12 A computer, whatever system you guys use? 13 (By Ms. Kays) When do you know how Mr. Barringer 13 A No. 14 scored on the civil service test that he took after he 14 And Mr. Barringer, after attending the academy, began 15 went to the academy? 15 working in the ?eld training program or being 16 A No. 15 participating in that at Southwest; correct? 17 The -- did Mr. Barringer take an oral board examination? 17 A Yeah. He started out at what's called post-BLEA, 13 A Yes. 18 B-L-E-A, post-academy training, which is about ?ve to 19 When did he take that? Before the academy or after the 19 six weeks, and he did all of that. And then he went to 20 academy? - 20 what we cail Phase II, which is approximately three 21 A After. - . 21 months, where he is riding with a second deputy, 22 He -- in fact, he took it wearing his deputy uniform, 22 additional training. And now he is in Phase 23 didn't he? 23 And Phase involves a deputy being supervised by a 24 A I don't know. 24 master police officer; correct? 01 Who were his examiners for the oral board? Page 79 01 A A supervisor isn't the correct term, but -- but certainly Page 81 21 (Pages 78 to 81) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington a -- the master police officer looks over his paperwork, helps him out, mentors him or her, that sort of thing. But a master police of?cer is not a supervisory position. MS. KAYS: Do you have the time? MR. WINTERBAUER: Do I have the time? MS. KAYS: Yeah. MR. WINTERBAUER: Sure. 11:30. MS. KAYS: Oh, okay. I was just looking at the ten minutes off on MR. WINTERBAUER: Oh, got it. Got it. (By Ms. Kays) You have said that well, Mr. Barringer, 1 2 3 (Om?d?im-Ph 12 A He is not. And how is that? A Because he is not hired as a police of?cer. Again, you're confusing a police of?cer versus what his job is and the commissioning of a police of?cer. But if he is wearing a gun, a badge, and a uniform. and carrying out police am amusing you? Because the whole thing is -- A Yeah, you -- -- the whole thing is rather unusual. A I will agree with you that -- ?rst of all, no, you are not amusing me. Far from it. I am chuckling because 13 during that time period post-BLEA, Phase ll. Phase Ill, 13 it -- it's hard to get this across, and getting harder, 14 he is out there on the streets in Southwest, wearing his 14 it appears. 15 deputy uniform; correct? 15 They are two separate systems. Under state law, 1 16 A On the days that he works, yes. 16 can commission as a police of?cer, as sheriff, anybodyl badge; right? 17 want to. It goes back to the old posse days where you 13 A Yes. 18 would commission a posse for a very speci?c person, go 19 He can make arrests? 19 out and track that person down. 20 A Yes. 20 In the state of Washington, now I can commission 21 He can use deadly force, if necessary? 21 anybody as a police of?cer and they do not have to go 22 A Yes. 22 through the academy for six months. Then they have to go 23 He takes police reports? 23 through the academy and be certi?ed by the State of 24 A Yes. 24 Washington as a police of?cer. 25 Responds to 911 calls? 25 Barringer is certi?ed by the State of Washington. Page 82 Page 84 1 A Yes. 1 That gives him full police authority. He can arrest 2 Reads people their Miranda or constitutional rights? 2 people. He can write police reports. He can give them 3 A Yes. 3 their Miranda warnings. He can use deadly force. 4 He is a fully commissioned -- according to you, fully 4 But he is not being paid as a police of?cer. And 5 commissioned deputy with your department; correct? 5 until he is being paid as a police of?cer, he doesn't 5 A Yes. 3 have to take a civil service test or pass or be hired, 7 And he is authorized by you to undertake all those 7 and he doesn?t become a member of the LEOFF II retirement 8 actions just like Sergeant Neff is authorized? 8 system. Now, yes, it's a little bit different. 9 A Yes. 9 Well -- Why is it then that he didn't have to go through the same process and follow the same rules as everybody else? A Because he is not hired nor is he being paid as a police officer. As a deputy, when youbecome a deputy, you get entered into. and I can?t recall the exact name or the acronym, but it's system; correct? A It's called LEOFF, LEOFF ll, L-E-O-F-F ll. And it's the retirement system; correct? A it is. State retirement system, yes. For law enforcement? A And ?re?ghters. A But there are other people out there that have the same abilities that he does that have not been through the full police academy or the civil service in the sheriff's office. And who are those -- A So it's not that unusual. And who are those individuals? A Well, reserve of?cers, for one. I have the ability to appoint reserve officers who have full police authority but only work for free, number one, and only work for a limited period of time. And now, unlike in the past, there is a reserve 22 And by virtue of Mr. Barringer becoming a commissioned 22 academy they go through that is about a third of the 23 deputy, he is now part of that LEOFF ll system? 23 regular academy, have the ability to give special 24 A No. 24 commissions, and everybody in the -- that works in the 25 He is not? 25 courthouse as a court-martial, several courthouses have a Page 83 Page 85 22 (Pages 82 to 85) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court Seattlei'l'acoma, Washington 1 special commission. 1 now into Phase he has donejust like every other 2- Again, they are not hired as a full police officer 2 deputy. 3 and yet they have full police power, nor have they been 3 And, in fact, he has had more training than most 4 through the police academy. So this is not way out there 4 deputies, including me and including Sergeant Neff, 5 by any stretch of the imagination. 5 because the process is so many longer than it was when 5 And why did he go through -- why did he'take the civil 5 she and I went through. 7 service test? 7 What gives you the right or authority to say that you 3 A Because he -- I don't know for sure, so I would have to 3 don?t think that the people in the Southwest Precinct 9 speculate, but i think, at some point in time, he would 9 will care? 19 like to become a -- the job -- perform the job of a 19 A I am speculating the same way you are when you say, don't 11 police officer. 11 you think they would care? 12 How long 12 And I am saying, no, I don't think they would care 13 A I am only going to be the sheriff for so long and I am 13 that he has not taken the civil service test because 14 only going to live for so long. And I suspect that he 14 that's the only thing that differentiates him from 15 will outlive me and he would like a second career as a 15 Sergeant Nerf, except for experience. 15 police officer. Well, actually, it's a little different because Sergeant 17 So, again, hypothetically speaking, speculative, I 17 Neff went through the process that?s set forward in your 13 think that's why he took the civil service test or 13 backgrounding unit SOP, and Mr. Barringer didn't. You 19 perhaps he took it just to take it. I don't know. 19 already testified to that, as has he. He didn't -- he 29 MS. KAYS: Oh, why don?t you just go 20 didn't go through the same sequence of events that 21 ahead and change it now? Okay. I am just going to run 21 Sergeant Neff did in order to become an officer? 22 to the restroom really quick. 22 A What part didn't he go through? I disagree. 23 MR. WINTERBAUER: Yeah. 93 Oh, took the oral boards after he went to the academy. 24 THE VIDEOGRAPH ER: Here marks the end 24 He took the civil service exam after he went the deposition of John Urquhart. We are 25 academy. Page 86 Page 88 1 going off the record and the time is 11:33 am. 1 A To be employed as a police of?cer, not to perform the 2 (Recess from 11:police of?cer. State law requires that someone 3 11:39 am.) 3 be certi?ed to be a police of?cer. Mr. Barringer is 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here marks the 4 certi?ed to be a police of?cer, which means he has the 5 beginning of DVD No. 2 in the deposition of John 5 requisite training to do so. 5 Urquhart. We are back on the record. The time is 9 Who paid for Mr. Barringer to go to the academy? 7 11:39 am. 7 A 75 percent was paid for by the State; 25 percent was paid 3 (By Ms. Kays) So here's what I don't understand, sir, 3 by the sheriff's of?ce. 9 which is, if Mr. Barringer admittedly didn't go through 9 is that the breakdown for every candidate? 19 the same process that every other deputy in your 19 A Yes. 11 department did, such as Sergeant Neff, don't you think 11 You said that with respect to the civil service test, 12 the people that he is policing down in Southwest have a 12 that you didn?t think that the people of Southwest-would 13 right to know that, when they encounter him, he's 13 cars that he didn't take a civil service test. Isn't the 14 didn't go through the same process that Sergeant Neff or 14 point of the civil service test so that people go to the 15 virtually all of the other deputies in your department 15 academy based upon their aptitude and you don't get kind 15 did? 15 of -- you don?t just get to send your friends to the 17 A Well, ?rst of all, he did go through the same process 17 academy basically? 13 that Sergeant Neff did and all the other deputies in the 18 A No. 19 department. The only difference being he didn't take the 19 So is it your testimony that the civil service test that 29 civil service test. 29 all other deputies take in order to get a combined score, 21 I really don't think that the community in Southwest 21 plus their oral boards to get a combined score on this 22 area, the area in SeaTac, White Center, cares that he 92 list, that when you're sheriff, that civil service exam 23 didn't take the civil service test because everything 23 process doesn't matter? 24 else that he has done from the background investigation, 24 A I am not saying that at all. You mischaracterize the 25 through the academy, through post-BLEA, through Phase II, 25 purpose of the civil service test. The civil service Page 87 Page 89 23 (Pages 86 to 89) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court Seattlel?l'acoma, Washington test is to get hired as a police of?cer or virtually any other -- almost any other governmentjob, you take a civil service test. He is not employed as a police of?cer; therefore, he doesn't need to take the civil service test. He is not employed as a police officer is your testimony, and yet he is just running around Southwest with a gun and a badge and a uniform and a patrol car? A That's an extreme mischaracterization of what he is doing. He is no different than any other Phase person out there, except that he doesn't have the job, the job title of police officer. When you put him through the academy and the State taxpayers of the state of Washington paid 75 percent and the taxpayers of King County presumably paid 25 percent, you took a spot for an eligible deputy when you did that, did you not? A No. Did you clear your actions with the civil service commission of King County? A The civil -- the civil service commission of King County A Sixty-eight. And Mr. Barringer is how old? A in his 30s. 1 don't know speci?cally. Mr. Barringer testified that you were invited to his graduation from law school. He could not recall if you attended. Did you attend? A i did. My wife and both went. How would you describe your relationship with Mr. Barringer? A He is a friend. is he a close friend? A Yes. How much time during a seven-day, you know, Monday through Sunday, time period do you spend with Mr. Barringer? A Well, he is in the of?ce next to mine, so we are at work 40 hours a week. Do you socialize with him outside of work? A Occasionally. And What are the circumstancss in which you have done that? 22 has no say in this because he was not hired as a police 22 A He and his wife and my wife will go out to dinner. 23 of?cer. 23 That's about it. 24 Do you intend to use this process for other deputies 24 How often do you do that? 25 other than Mr. Barringer? 25 A Rarely. Page 90 Page 92 1 A At this point I have no intentions of doing that. 1 How many times have you done it this calendar year? 2 How long have you known Mr. Barringer? 2 A i have no idea. 3 A Oh, ten years-ish. 3 When did you ?rst know or get to know Mr. Barringer or 4 Mr. Barringer testified that he resided with you for a 4 make his acquaintance? 5 period of time? 5 A 2005 maybe. Something like that. Ten years ago. 6 A That is correct. 5 What were you doing at that time? 7 And how long did he reside with you in your personal 7 A Iwas the media relations of?cer for the sheriff's 8 residence? 8 of?ce. 9 A A few months at most. 9 Do you recall what he was doing? ?NM?bidd?Id?l-?d? Mr. Barringer testified that you did not charge him rent? A That's correct. Mr. Barringer also testi?ed that you attended his bachelor party in Las Vegas? A That's correct. As well as, I believe he said that you attended his wedding? A I did. 1 only attended it a day -- I think one day of the bachelor party because i had to come back to be in the gay pride parade so I was just there overnight basically. And you are how old, sirwas working for council member Dunn. And how is it that the two of you had interaction? A All of the council members work with the sheriff's of?ce. Sometimes council member to sheriff; sometimes council member to staff. Most often staff to staff. I was staff; he was staff. As media relations of?cer. you have contact with the council? A Oh, yes. And what types of things would you discuss on a professional level with Mr. Barringer while he was working for Mr. Dunn? - A Oh, I don't remember speci?c things, 23 Yeah. 23 Do you consider yourself an expert in identity theft? 24 A Currently? 24 A No. 25 Uh-huhthat you and Mr. Barringer Page 91 Page 93 24 (Pages 90 to 93) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington 1 remained, ldon't know. acquaintance or friends during 1 A Campaign manager. 2- that entire time period? In other words, were you -- was 2 And what did that entail? 3 he always with Mr. Dunn? Were you always the media 3 A Setting up appointments, making sure I got there on time, 4 relations officer? How did you have interaction? 4 advice, strategies, those sorts of things. 5 A I was always media relations officer. He worked for Dunn 5 At the time that you hired Mr. Barringer to be your 6 for a period of time and then he went to law school. 5 campaign manager. had he previously ran for elected 7 Did you stay in contact with him while he was in law 7 office? 8 schooldid. 9 Has he ran for elected office? 10 And what were the circumstances under which you had 10 A He has. 11 contact with Mr. Barringer while he was in law school? 11 And when was that. approximately? 12 A I don?t know what you mean. 12 A Approximately two years ago. 13 Well. did -- i mean if he's 13 Did he run for elected office while he was employed by 14 A We would have lunch occasionally. He got ready to go to 14 you in the sheriff's department? 15 The Hague in his senior year and I offered to store his 15 A Yes. 16 stuff while he was gone because he was going to be gone 16 And what was the elected office that he was seeking? 17 for ?ve or six months, something like that. 17 A House of Representatives. 13 So he brought his stuff over, moved in for three 13 Do you know what position or district? 19 weeks or two weeks or a month, something like that, went 19 A District? I don't. 20 to The Hague, came back, graduated, and then moved in -- 20 is it the district in which he resides? 21 left and moved in with his fiancee, took the bar exam, 21 A Yes. 22 and then moved in with his ?ancee. 22 And does he reside in King County? 23 Have you ever -- other than hiring Mr. Barringer. have 23 A Yes. 24 you ever taken personal effort to get him employed in 24 Did Mr. Barringer handle campaign contributions or 25 other organizations? 25 campaign finance issues for you? Page 94 Page 96 1 A Sure. 1 A No. 2 And what are those organizations? 2 Did he author campaign disclosure. public disclosure 3 A I don't remember. The prosecutor?s office for sure, yes. 3 reports that you are required to file? 4 Which prosecuting attorney?s of?ce? 4 A No. 5 A The King County Prosecuting Attorney's Of?ce. 5 Who did that for you during your campaign? 6 And who did you contact in order to make that happen? 5 A Argo Strategies. 7 A I probably wrote a letter to Dan Satterberg. i think i 7 What made you -- i know i asked you this, but was -- was 3 wrote a letter to Dan Satterberg. 3 there something about Mr. Barringer?s background in 9 Do you know if Mr. Barringer was hired in some capacity 9 particular that led you to believe that he would be a 10 by the prosecuting attorney?s of?ce? 10 good hire as a campaign manager? In other wordsknow. 11 have prior experience doing that? 12 What other efforts did you undertake to get Mr. Barringer 12 A Well, sure. He had worked for Reagan Dunn and for PVR, 13 hired? 13 which are elected positions, so he has been around 14 A ldon't know. 14 campaigns. He has worked in the legislature. He is a 15 He indicated that he worked for the Belieyue City 15 political science major. He seemed like a natural to me. 16 Attorney's Of?ce. Did you have any role in that? 15 Do you know what he did specifically campaign related for 17 A ldon't think so. 17 Mr. Von Reichbauer or Mr. Dunn? 13 I believe he also indicated that he worked for councilman 13 A lam not sure he did anything speci?cally campaign 19 Peter yon Reichbauer over winter break. 19 related. Probably not. 20 Did you have any role in that? 20 Are you guessing on that pointWhat point? 22 What caused you to hire Mr. Barringer to work on your 22 The "probably not" part? 23 campaign? 23 A Yeah. That would be the probably part. 24 A I thought he could do the job. 24 When did you hire Mr. Barringer to be your chief of 25 25 staff? What was his job description, if you will? Page 95 Page 97 25 (Pages 94 to 97) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattielTacoma, Washington 1 A When I was elected sheriff. 1 investigation or internal investigation. 2- Do you remember when he started? 2 Did you authorize him to have access to an ongoing 3 A When I started or when he started? 3 internal investigation? 4 He started. 4 A Yes. 5 A [think he started December 1st-ish -- of 2012. I'm 5 Why would you authorize him, in his capacity as a 9 sorry. 9 civilian employee. to have access to such information? 7 And what is hisjob description? 7 A illiany civilian employees have access to that sort of 9 A Well, he is chief of staff although he doesn't supervise 8 information, so that part is not unusual at all. In his 9 any staff as such. I am not sure there is a printed job 9 role as my adviser, kitchen cabinet [sic], his position, 10 description. There might be. But he works with the 19 it's entirely appropriate that he be aware of what?s 11 council, iiaisons with the council. going on as far as internal investigations are concerned. 12 He liaisons with the county executive and all of 12 Is it your testimony that it's appropriate for him to be 13 their staff, directly with council members and their 13 involved in an open and active internal investigation? 14 staff, not directly with the executive but certainly with 14 A Have knowledge of, yes. 15 their staff. He deals with constituent issues that come 15 My question is different. To be involved in. to review 19 up. He advises me on various issues. 19 evidence and provide investigators with his thoughts, is 17 Mr. - does Mr. Barringer have access to various computer 17 that appropriate? 19 systems, such as 13 A Yes. I have no problem with that. 19 A Yes. 19 Do you and Mr. Barringer regularly discuss the subject of 29 29 internal investigations that are open? 21 A Yes. 21 A Yes. 22 BIueTeam? 22 Mr. Barringer was the complainant in an internal 23 A He probably has access to BlueTeam, and not lAPro. Those 23 investigation against Amy Shoblom after she had come 24 two are -- one does one thing and one does the other, 24 forward and reported sexual harassment by Dewey Burns. 25 25 Are you aware of that? Page 98 Page 100 1 Would you -- Mr. Barringer testified about the systems 1 A I am aware that his name ended up on the complaint form, 2 that he had access to andlor used. 2 yes. 3 Would you defer to his testimony on that? 3 Well, is there -- I mean, it doesn't sound like you have 4 A Sure. 4 a problem if he is a complainant in an investigation if 5 In order to be hired as a civilian with the sheriff's 5 he is reviewing all this stuff? 9 department, there is a requirement that they go through a 9 A I don't. I don't have a problem in him being a 7 backgrounding process; correct? 7 complainant in that he brought it to the attention of 3 A Yes. 8 They are the ones that used his name as the 9 And that backgrounding process includes a questionnaire 9 complainant. They could have used mine; they could have 19 and a polygraph; correct? 10 used their own. They chose to use his name because he 11 A Yes. 11 brought the information forward. 12 And -- 12 And when Mr. Barringer made the complaint against 13 A As far as I know. 13 Ms. Shoblom and was the complainant in that 14 And that is because civilian or noncommissioned employees 14 investigation, that was after it was documented that you 15 of the sheriff's department have access to sensitive 15 were the complainant in an investigation into Sergeant 16 materials; right? 19 Neff regarding SET unit practices; correct? 17 A Yes. 17 A I am not sure of the time period without reviewing 13 Criminal investigations; right? 13 documents, butl -- sol don't know. ldon't know which 19 A Conceivably. 19 came ?rst. 29 And other -- and other sensitive material; right? 29 Well. if -- submit to you the -- your complaint 21 A Yes. 21 against Sergeant Neff came before. And you can dispute 22 Mr. Barringer initiated a complaint in this that?s 22 this later, if you would iike. but my recollection is, 23 relevant to this lawsuit where he reviewed gained 23 your complaint into Sergeant Neff or of Sergeant Neff 24 access to text messages that were developed, for lack of 24 came first and then Mr. Barringer's came after that as it 25 25 relates to Ms. Shoblom. a better word, during the course of an internal affairs Page 99 Page 101 26 (Pages 98 to 101) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers 8: Anderson Court SeattleiTacoma, Washington ?18 A Yeah, there is no -- there is no problem with that. You don't think it raises questions of bias? A Not at all. Because the -- the decision was made by consensus. Information came to me and the decision was made by me that, yes, this is something that needed to be investigated by So they go ahead and they list me as the complainant and that's ?ne, just like they did with Barringer. There is really no difference in the two. The -- your decision -- A Let me - can i kind of continue just for a second? it's no different than a citizen calling me up and complaining And if that is. in fact. the case. you certainly 1 it to you, Mr. Barringer. someone else about another aren't disavowing or denying that you were the 2 deputy, that that complaint would be turned over to IIU complainant as it relates to Sergeant Neff and the SET 3 for investigation; correct? unit investigation. are you? 4 A Most of the time. it depends on the complaint, but A That's correct. 5 conceivably, yes. Is it your testimony that it's appropriate for the 6 Well, certainly, if it was a complaint involving criminal Loudermill chief to be the complainant in an 7 misconduct, it would be referred to IIU, in addition to investigation where you are ultimately going to have to 3 an independent investigation? afford someone due process? 9 A it depends. Not always. So your testimony is that if someone brings a criminal allegation against a deputy, that it would not always be investigated by A That's correct. Would not be -- always be investigated. And just so I'm clear. wouldn't always be investigated from a criminal context by your department? A Yes. That's correct. And -- but the policies that you have regarding IIU and -- in your general orders manual actually dictate that allegations of criminal misconduct will be taken seriously; correct? A That's correct. 22 about the actions of one of our deputies. And lwould 22 And in order to take them seriously in terms of an 23 turn that over to itU to investigate, despite the fact 23 employment-related matter. if it's criminal misconduct; 24 that at some pointl could end up handling the Loudermill 24 right? And you are going to investigate it through llU; 25 or not. 25 right? Page 102 Page 104 1 And they could list me as the complainant in that 1 A If -- we would take it seriously if it's a credible 2 investigation. It?s really irrelevant who is listed as 2 complaint of criminal conduct or any other sort of 3 the complainant. It's whoever the information comes to 3 misconduct, if it's a credible complaint, yes. 4 has access to that information, is aware of that 4 Have you -- you have previously told Sergeant Katie 5 information, and, in fact, is required by the general 5 Larson. during the course of an internal investigation in 6 orders manual to notify IIU when there is a complaint 6 which you were interviewed, that the rules of the 7 lodged or they become aware of misconduct or potential 7 department do not apply to you; correct? 3 misconduct. 3 A No. That's not what 1 said. 9 MR. WINTERBAU ER: Hey, Julie, just 9 You haven't told Ms. Larson that the rules of the 10 heads-up, but I am at 12:04. 10 department don't apply to you with respect to being 11 MS. KAYS: Oh. okay. 11 truthful in an investigation? 12 MR. WINTERBAUER: No problem. i will 12 A No. What told her was, she was reading a -- some 13 just tell you when it's 12:10. 13 boilerplate that we read to people before they are being 14 MS. KAYS: No. We can stop here. 14 investigated, the gist of which is, if you don't 15 That's fine. 15 cooperate with the investigation, you can be terminated. 15 THE ER: And going off the 16 If you are not truthful, you can be terminated. 17 record. the time is 12:02 pm. 17 And that doesn't apply to me because I can't be 18 (Recess from 12:02 pm. 13 terminated and I can't be -- whether I lie or whetherl 19 1:12 pm.) 19 don?t cooperate, i cannot be terminated from the 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the 20 department because i am an elected of?cial. So that's 2?1 record. The time is 1:12 pm. 21 what I was referring to, and she knew that. 22 EXAMINATION (Continuing) 22 Well, but setting aside what you believe Sergeant Larson 23 BY MS. KAYS: 23 knew, your testimony is thatPrior to breaking for the noon hour. sir. you indicated 24 investigation. the rules of that apply to everybody 25 25 that, when a citizen brings a complaint. if they brought Page 103 else don't apply to you? Page 105 27 (Pages 102 to 105) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers 8- Anderson Court Washingion A when am saying is. I cannot be minimum irorn the depannrenrior lying during an or ior roiusino to an invosligailon, which is wlral she wal be me ironr ihe boilerpinre priorio on lmervlew. Well, you Keep eeying boilerplate. us actually called Garrily. its a Garnzy warning: corneal? A It's 3 Sonny warning. Thar: exactly correct. Yes. 0 And a my ouesirun is speclilc is riyouriosiirnany ihal, you lie dunng an lrwesbgailoh, you should nor be liwesligaled? A No. there not my osrlirnony. So wu should. in loci, be invesllgaied by your own deparlmenl ii you are iouno id have lied during an rnyeerigaiiom A Well, are wt laiking about your quastinn now. or are we raining about when Kalle Larson sold you? 0 Answer nry A Because Ihal'a hawwl warned our. A an-ndl on lire oirounnriances. 0 Why would you say iher7 Why would depend on his clmums'ances7 MR objecn'on Asked and answered a (By Ms. Kaye) Go ahead. A a-eaun ii on ends on ailngniion .gaimnro or anybody nmdihll or not And as lhe slith do you whars credible? A Iminll nrany people in in. department delerrninn whore credible. So is ii your ieslirnony. iheh. mar if oirlzan makes a oomoisini oi criminal wrongdoing agelnsl anyone in your oepamnenl. a oornrnissioned oinoer in your deparlmemi lhel you Will iirsi son oolwhelher or not you believe lhal person to be credible before you, in iaoL inves|igaie lhern7 A Nm :lwayI. 0 Eur you're saying ihal you are going lo rnaire a 2" 0 Answer my ouesrion. 20 eredioriiry oelore you dateirrlirle beiore 21 A 50 you need tn oiarliy ihe ouesilon lorrne. 2' you send mar lore lhorough and proper inuesligarion in 22 MS KAVS: Can you read me ouesiion =2 inlernel Affairs arid/oh in a criminal invesligalion? 2: back, please? 23 A vinraido you rrienn by"you"7 2' (oueshoh on Page loo, Lines 2' a You, the sheriff. 25 1345 read oyihereporler.) 25 A illia personally? Page 106 Page 108 we WITNESS loan be 0 Yeah. 2 yes 2 A [don't see all More oornpisanls mat some in. a (By ills Keys) 50 do you believe ihar rhe rules as sel is ii your Mmass who do renew wmplainu -- A rorih in the general orders manual apply lo you in your A and I'll locus on llu ior lire nronrehi IIU gets a wrrerit capacll'f? 5 oompiern hour a cilizen ihal says an individual in ins A Depends on wirar rules we are laiking abouL a depannreni, a oomrnissroneo officer has an an i Why would you say men Why would ii depemfi Aren't 7 ol criminal wrongdoing i you. as me head oi rhe sheriffs department' supposed lo a le ii your lesrirnony men that llu should dalennine aoiiriln -- under lhe some rules as everybody else7 9 wherher or nor lhai person should be 'inyesiigeted? A Because lhe rules lheilfl'a include a A They have urs :hilily lo do urae yes. ll union ihaluys. Ityou don't wim an Vou can order them hoiio conduct an invesiigau'on. can't l2 inveelrganon, you can belemilriated. unnot be '2 you7 1: lenninaoeu ior nut eooperaling an invesrigndon, so i: A yes. a oral rule dues not apply. is And ii an llu lnvesligaior or oonrrnander were lo your < Andersen Caurt Seattle/raooma. Washington A VIS. And do you recall. as you sit here today. M10 it she had a partner. who that pannsr was? A Patrol partner? a yes A No. 0 Did _work by hersell or work with a patrol partner? A By hersefli How long did you supervise--7 A About: year rnaypa. '2 And as her sergeant. you were responsible tor approving is her arrests? is A Approving her reports. yes. is 0 Screening arrests' Is A Typically,wedon'l do treat. Approvrng leave tor her it she wanted to take if) '5 A Val. Is If she wanted matter her shift tor a day. maybe had a 20 medical appointment you would approve that as weir: 21 A Yes. that time? A It could be 0 And - an the shehhs department7 A Yes. And still is to this day? A Van. And during the time period that you supervised. as a sergeant. _i did you not. in loot. haul a sexual her? A I did not. Do you deny having any sexual contact with whatsoever during the time period that you were her sergeant? A Yes we have witnesses that will lesfify to the contrary. you are going to dispute their account or events? A Absolut-ly. 0 Were you aware that iswidely known Within the department that you had such an airairwith -- during the 22 If she needed to Lake insaation time. you would approve =2 time perlod ynu were her supervisorr 23 that" 2' A Aware that them In rumors oul :4 A yes. 2A (1 Are you also aware that there are eyeiuitnesses to your 25 You were responsible tar authoring pericrrhance 25 conduct with _7 Page tto Page 112 i evaluations they were during that time period tor a A No. there are none. 2 new 2 In June of 2016. you were intornied by Sergeant a A had evaluations then. but ltwe did. I a Mullinax -- 4 would. yes. MR iani going to 5 And oertainly. even without a written oenormanaa interrupt and just interposo an coiect'ion This line or 5 evaluation. you were tor counseling her is questioning will he marked as conhdential, 1 should she do something incanecfly" 7 MS KAYS Okay. Well. I am going to a A Yes. a note my objection as well tie-cause the judge ruled that 9 a Van were responsible tor giving tier directive at a scene 9 there was nothing coniidential in these notes. in ityou were there supervising it? in MR WINTERBALIER: I disagree that the A Yes, ll judge ruled that as to the saoond piece that was And it she had any complaints or concerns about her 1: highlighted, not to the piece which the judge I: colleagues or other superiors. you would he required to didn't have oeiore. so A a report that up yourchain orooinmand If itinvoived. tor MS Actually 15 instance. discrimination or harassment) is MR. WINTEREAUE . I just in A Vest. Ii reepectiully disagree, l7 0 During the time period that you were a - --'s '7 MS KAVS okay. And I will rust la sergeant. she was manied. was she rim? is state tor the record my motion encompassed the first part is A I don't think so. that you had redacted or Captain Anderson's notes as well 20 0 she wasn't married to _7 20 as the second paragraph sorry I guess its the II A No. I don't think -- she was at that point at third paragraph. the sentence ortwothst you 22 in time 22 highlighted, so we can agree to disagree on that and 2: Are you uncertain? 2: will tile my motion accordingy 2' A VIE. 1' 25 0 it could have been that she was married to -- at Page it 15 tBy Ms Kays) In June ol201s, sir. you were by Sergeant Mlke Mullihax. as well as captain Anderson. that Page 113 29 (Pages 11010 113) Shetifl John W. Urquhart October 3, 2015 Byers a. Andaman Court Slime/Tacoma, --. now had reported lo lha FEI ma 2 you had leped her in 20037 3 A Via. when Sergeahl Mullinax and Captain Andaman you 5 oi lhai, why didn't you pennlilhem lo commence an iniernai hvasugauon inio lhe maliai'l 7 A Because more was no <Byers at Anderson Court RepnneszldeoNidBoconferoncing Seatiien'acoma, Washington no. latnnotuytng lam aaying and to not creahie It mu hang-nod. Idon-t know why she is saying that nook at thou reasons as a pose rty and my a possioiity. and ltdoean'tmean itwoulol appty to any other rape or mual assault claimant. I am loot taiking about Angie and why alto would say this. a Well. you did your win littie inuestlgation. didn't you, to see what was going on with her oy looking in the court file and seetng what her exhusband had to aay7 MR WINTERBAUER: oorecilon The question testimony mircharaclerizes his testimony. 0 (By Ms. Kaye) Go ahead. A lwaotrying to ligure out why slut would any something like Well, it you were trying to do youer little investigation. why wouldn't you lust have llu do it'i MR. WINTERBAUER: Same otnecuon THE Iwas not doing my win nttle rnuesngauonohiectien. Counsel in now. and i will more to strike that portion or the that <Byers 8t . 'rsan Court Seattle/Tacoma, And whats Captain Anderson's motive to miaatate things against you in his notest A He doesn't necmarlly haveto a motive. ldon-t think he does have a motive. lmink he lust mediated it And isnt the reason why you dider want it documented in Biue'iearn to hide this item public disclosure? A No. 0 Once something gets into Blueleem. it is euoyect to puoirc disclosure. isn't it not" A Yes. 0 And Captain Anderson lunher asked you it he should enter it as a NIM. which. i believe. is a non-investigative matter. correct? A Thll's oormt. And a NIM would potenoaliy also he suoiect to public disdosure. wouldn't in A Voe. And the reason why you told him no. not to enter it as a MS. we: is that 67 54 a (By Ms. Kayel Handing wu Exhibll 5. end I want to reter you A first olaii. have you seen this moepage document oeloie, am A tree. Ci And these were presented in a redacted to me during Captain Anderson's deposition. You haua oelore you the unredacted lonn When did you filsl sea lhese 7 this document? A When Mr. wtntorlrauar showed it to me. 0 Approximately how lotto ado was Illil? A i don't know. 9 within the last week or ten days? A Lang" than that, i think. but, say, within the last month certainty, Probably lass than that 0 Were you surpnred when you saw that Captain Anderson had kept notes on your conversation: With him't A Not pa uiarty. Did it make sense to you why he would lteep palsonal notes 2t MM. is to line this allegation 6mm public disclosure? 2a in documenting your canvatsallali! wi|ri him on his 2t A Aqaln, that'a not coran 2i "new 22 What is hie won why you wouldn't. it you have done 22 A 2: naming wrong -- which is when you said. You said this 23 Why "on 2A didn't happen. Why on earth would you care it it were A WM mu" .7 mm, mm, that "an" 25 documented as Biuei'eam or investigated it you didn't do 25 his prerogative. Page 122 Page 124 I anything wrung7 I You don't captain Anderson testified that the contents 2 A Eucauie lots of people inlhe dapamnenthaye acme to 2 ottha conuersation he documented on em ol'is caused a tliatand could getthatoutotthera. And you have 3 him, quakyunquota, personal anguish. A do in theaherltra other: when Were you aware oltiiait 5 Andlsawnoreaeontolat A No a lhattiappen hacauso ltnairer -- the incident never 6 Has this caused you any personal anguish? 7 happened 7 A tlna aoousallone have caused me pimo'nil angulsh. yes. a 0 So you were concerned sooul your own pmffislnnal a Do you understand why it would cause captain Anderson. a reputation as opposed to allowing the puolic to have 9 the commander ol llu. personal anguish to have been to proper to pupils documenis7 involved in some respect in this" It A The puulc does have some to proper public documents It A No. they have with this one. lwaa concomed Ihom I2 0 iwant to rotor you to the second paragraph under the is myull, but was also concerned :houl- -has in 6/21 at '16 headline or date it says -- captain it mental issues, There '5 no question ahuut that. she tiaa It Anderson writes as toilovrs. quote. i the snenllil I5 arm-mad that. So my concern was twoprongod. is he would like this documented in BlueTeani and he said no is to out you were conoerned aoout your professional is I suggested that a hint. would he appropriate as i7 repu|a|lon7 i? this is vrneflwewauld do ttwe received a complaint like it A My personal reputationyos. otcourae. it this on other depanrnent mamoers. He said he didn't is Vourpmlessinnal and personal mpulation? ta think it was necessary iloilowed his diremion, A Did I read that corractlya Cap-v it A Vere. Ms KAvs- Here, i'liniaikthat i: Captain Anderson documents that 3 MM would have been the 25 Sulry :1 I am not using -- would he apompriale is 1' (Exhibit No 5 marked lor 14 what he said because that is wliat they would do with a 15 identification.) 25 complaint like this on oiherdepanment members Page 123 Page 125 32 (Pages 12210125) sherifl John W. Urquhart Octuber 3. 2016 Byals lAndalson Court Reporterle seattleITacoma, Washington i is captain Anderson ooth in that7 i or was It just something that she gave to you or what? 2 A No 2 A Geo. Mllink she sent IttoTho Stranger. 3 0 so Irs your testimony that Captain Anderson got that a Do you know it hwas published? 4 part wrong7 A ldon't know. 5 A Vos. that's my testimony. 5 Did you assist her in getang it to The stranger? (1 Okay Is your testimony also that he got wrong the tact a A No. 7 that he suggested or asked it you wood like this i Did you solicit the latter Irorn her? a documented in BlueTesm' a A I old. a A That's what I said he sald. tte me would like 9 And how did you solicit the letter Irorn her? is this documented in aiueteam, and I told him I didn't in A tasked her Itsha'd write me essentially a letter at it thinItwe needed to do that Ii recommendation. torwantota term. 12 Do you think the public has a right to know it the Have you had contact with - since you were is elected shenri has been accused at a sexual assault by I: informed that she made this allegation7 a who was someone who was then their subordinate and A No. is it shouldnt oe investigated? is So is it your testimony that the only reason why you in A I think It the public In: a rightto know it it's in didn't or excuse me Let me start this over again. 11 coming train a credible Milieu. i7 ls your testimony that the reason why llU t: a You know. thats the one thing that did you is shouldn't have documented or even oonducted an in lmfifilgate sexual assault cases'i it investigation into this matter is. in large part. because 2r- A No. 20 has mental health issues? 21 So you are not lamiliar that that's the first tactic that 2i MR. WINTEREAUER: oojection. Asked 22 someone goes to is to discredit their aocrser when they 27 and answered. 21 are accused olthat'l Are you tamiliar with than za THE WITNESS: My testimony is that it 14 MR WINTERBAUER: Objection. Counsel 2t didn't need to be investigated It was not a firsthand :5 is testriyrng its also argumentative. 25 complaint It had already been investigated try the FBI. Page 126 Page 128 a (By Ms Kays) Answerthe question i Thars one issue 1 A No, I am not lamiliar wlIh In". 2 52mm Issue Is va] she made |hls Complalm and what 3 0 Wellthe detectives I makes her. at least In my mind. not a victtni arid in SAU. I be! they tell you that 4 that IS because. A. It never happened: and. B. bemusel 5 So is there anything else you war" In dn 7 5 am aware of her mental issues. which I am assuming have 5 MR WINTEREAUER. IwiH move in 5 been exacerbated In 2015 some lesson 1 strike Counsel's testimony again there. which was not a 7 a (By Ms, Keys) Do you understand how its to I question out an atnrmative statement a understand why you wouldn't send this out to a neutral 9 0 (By Ms KayS) Is there anything else that you have to '1 third party. maybe another police departinentto look at to say about --as to why you came to the in and investigate in an internal fashion hecause you are it conclusion that she is not a credible deolarant? ii the aootaeo dictating whether or not the investigation II A she has been includiny supportive aims. at my i: should mom is leadenhlp. ot our Mendahlo since zoo: up to apparentty i: A A neutral third party already had investigated it. 14 May orJune otzmo lam at a loss to understand why it especially the criminal aspectot It, which Is the most '5 5M '5 lmpomnl part it, and they determlned (hit the is Ever single thing that she has ever put In writing iA complainant was not credible. has been incredibly supportive and all or a sudden Ihe at Did you -- Ia Ills turned on a dime. I have no Idea why she did that. it A 5? "may happen" In 0 Whatwas the nature oitheleltershewrote ioryou in it 0 Did you review that investigation? In support you during your election campaign? In A No. 21 A That I was a good supervtsor and she was happy to work 2i 0 Well. then, why not let llu conduct the intemal part of :2 Iorme. 2: the investigation. the violation oi the general orders 25 And an 13 manual? 24 A Essenti- . 24 A there um no allegation of: violation onha general 25 did she send this letter to a parllcular news outlet. 15 orders manual. There in a .. allegation of ctimlml Page 127 Page 129 33 (Pages 125 to 129) Sheri" John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattleiTacoma, Washington conduct, which was already investigated by the FBI and they found the complainant not to be credible. But for all practical matters, when you get a call from a citizen and they -- or it comes to the attention of the department, they are not citing a general orders manual provision when they say that the deputy assaulted me during a traf?c stop. They are saying the deputy assaulted me during a traf?c stop and then an investigation is commenced? A A criminal investigation is commenced, not an ilU investigation. Is that yourtestimony, that you don't run parallel investigations, both an internal investigation and a criminal investigation at the same time? A It depends on the circumstances. Sometimes we do; sometimes we don't. But certainly the investigation that takes precedence is the criminal investigation, which already occurred in this case. So is it your testimony that. if a criminal investigation occurs and the person is deemed to not have committed any wrongdoing or it doesn't merit an investigation, you then won't conduct an internal investigation? A Depending on the circumstances, that could he a possibility, yes. There are different burdens of proof with respect to a Page 130 any facts. They have heard one sentence or two sentences from an FBI agent. They haven?t conducted an investigation, have they? A i have no idea how many sentences the FBI agent said to the investigator, but even Captain Anderson said this could be a or should be a Nlilii, non-investigative matter, without being prompted by me. That was his conclusion. So really what we are talking about is, should this have been listed as a NIM in lAPro or not? Well -- A And my decision was, it would not be listed as a for the reasons I have already told you. Have you reviewed Captain Anderson's deposition testimony? I A No, I haven't. Don't you think, in fact, Captain Anderson was suggesting ?rst BlueTeam, and when you say no. he is at least trying to get it documented in some fashion? MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. Calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: Captain Anderson never suggested to me that this be investigated by (By Ms. Kays) BlueTeam A He only suggested that it be documented as a So Captain Anderson has the BlueTeam part wrong in his Page 132 tapeworm-huma- 20 21 22 23 24 .25 criminal investigation versus an internal investigation; correct? A Yes. And there are different avenues of punishmentrephrase that. No. There are no different standards of proof for -- to begin an investigation, just the outcome of it. There are standards of proof which are required of a criminal investigation? A At the end. Well, you develop -- A You don't you don't - there are no standards of proof when to begin a criminal investigation. Well, then, by that standard, why aren't you -- why didn't you let your department conduct the investigation into this? A Because it had already been done by the FBI. So as you sit here today, are you going to stand by the fact that you won't let your Internal Affairs department investigate this allegation into you? A There is nothing to investigate. Because you said so; right? A No. Because those are the facts. Well, your -- we are talking about -- we are talking about the Internal Affairs Unit. They haven't developed Page 131 paragraph? A You are misunderstanding what BlueTeam is. No, I am actually not. Captain Anderson says, quote, i asked the Sheriff if he would like this documented in BiueTeam and he said no. You directed him not to enter it into BlueTeam; correct? A have already said i did not direct him. He asked me, do you think we should document this in BlueTeam? And 1 says, no. I don't think that's necessary. Document. That has nothing to do with an investigation. A NIM goes into BlueTeam. An investigation goes into BlueTeam. So your testimony is that, when you say, no, I don't think that's necessary, you are not giving Captain Anderson a direct order not to enter this into BlueTeam? No. I didn't say that either. Because you were, weren't you? What? Giving him a direct order? Yeah. You absolutely were. No. 80 Jesse Anderson, a commander of is going to go rogue all of a sudden after you tell him, don't document it in BlueTeam and don't document it as a NIM, and he is going to start an investigation on his own; is that your Page 133 34 (Pages 130 to 133) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Anderson Court ReportersNIdeoneoeoniereneing Seattle/Tacoma, testimony? YOU have invulved younall in MI Amend 2 A No! mail. 2 in have you N717 a :3 Von gave him airecl orders to hlde (his iroin public 1 A Home um. I review and from investigationyour lesurnony lnai you haven't lolo IIU 5 A That's mewayyou are characterizing 1L and that's a 5 invest-galore anoior ilis cammandei al the lime oi liu not a and il'l not one. 6 lo oonouet oeriain Wlmess intervene? 7 ls ii a Violation oi oer>> -- I guess under your 7 A Vee. leadership. is it a ol the general orders a 0 Von haven't done that; a manual tor a sergeant to have a sexual relationship mm A lmva oone unit. in a subordinate7 in a van memio--eoiry-- ii A Ves. ii A I nave llmiud the scope investigation. yes. so 12 0 Von said that meie was an article lnal you lsviawed it to other people too larnv-r nno lbw. Ia concerning -- memal health issues i3 wtiatwo were tryingtegetoethe bottom at Whal was mil anisle'l 1' 0 ln fact Captain Anderson's uplnian was mat Ihi's was a Is A nine: in me --. is Iyslemic pmbiem involving Ms mm. in large part in When did that article appear. approxmaleiy? is there were many layers oi peopie signing olion <7 A i7 tier reoeipts and reimbursemsm requesls. correth '5 Cl brought department. did she is A That's correct. in not? 1? (1 And you wanteo la nurrou the soups to lost locus on 20 A 5h! dld. 2'7 Ms Ahmed? 21 And you were a in loot picwedlrig'i' 2i A lwumoo lo icnpl la (anus jun on her mom 22 A lwfl. 27 slncewewar: duing I: investigallon, and Wu 21 And settled her lawsuitwiih me oepaninenl. 2: woqu deal with the other wank lot-r. 2' Were you awale Dl (ha?7 2' 0 Well. me IIU invesfigalion carinnl feed information 10 25 A Yes. 25 crimhal lnveslgallnri? Page 134 Page 136 i Were you invoiveo in settlement oiseusaions over that? i A more comet. 2 A No. 2 0 But you are aware otooln asoee'e oilnat investigation. a a Do you know how much the settlement was tor? I aren't yuuWho have you discussed captain Anderson's note eno lie 5 in And yet you are involving yourseil in the ill) 5 sllesafion from _mh7 a investigation. iirniling lne scope oiwno lhey can ano 7 A My attorneys. 7 cannot talk to Aren'l you doing lhal just to achieve a a Have you o'eeussacl lliern wriri any third parlias'7 a particular outcome" 5 A No. 9 A No. not Have you had more men one conversation wun coolain in You weren't interested in Captain Anderson's lake, mat ii Anoerson about this? ii there are mitigaling instances ano iaetors neie 12 A No. 12 Ms Atwood? 13 0 Have you had more than one conversation Wiin Sergeam 1: A in parts of it. pane omie lnvealigalion. there may it Mullinexaeoot rhea 1' have been people that signeo on In! agnglaul credit is A No. is can: use. hul inai neaen-t rnlilgelo her role in all of 15 You have emanated, while yuu were sheriff, parallel "5 Khls. i7 inveeligatione, ooin criminal ano IIU into several i7 And the mm important pan alone lnvuligation, in in department members. have you now is my view. was maklng sum that it progreeteo without '5 A V95. '9 Inning It expand 100 much hocausn (hil'a no! 20 Mr. Hole 7 is it Holmell'? 20 employee. And any moon that eome up, she 2i A tree. 21 can oringtnose up in the 22 0 Daniel Murphy? 22 Well. ii sounds like you have already rnaoe up your mind. 2: A Yes. 23 Have you had the Laudermill'7 2- Any oinere lhai oorne to mlrid" 24 A lriave not mo the Louoenn llinve not made up my 25 A Tillany Atwood. as until In: all the teeters. until I lisoen to her Page 125 Page 137 35 (Pages 134 lo 137) sheriff John w. Urquhart October 3. 2016 Byers 8; Anderson Court SeattIeITacoma, Washington mitigating factors, which could be, as you suggest, that people signed off on her expense accounts. Well, that's what Captain Anderson testified to. You haven't reviewed his deposition? A No, I have not. I am picking that up just from what you said here in your questions. Captain Anderson also testified that he believed you were overly involved in Ms. Atwood?s investigation to the point that you were shaping the outcome of it and it caused him personal concern. Were you aware of that? A No. He never brought that to my attention. And this investigation in -- commenced into Ms. Atwood has occurred after she authored the memo about her cencerns for you certifying Mr. Barringer to go to the academy; correct? A I don't know when it started, but that's possible. The dates would hear that out, would they not? A Yes, they would. You've also actively involved yourself in investigations into -- IIU investigations into the conduct of Brian Barnes; correct? A No. So it's your testimony that you didn't involve yourself going to say that they are MR. WINTERBAUER: question is argumentative. (By Ms. Keys) Mistaken is a nice it? MR. (By Ms. Keys) You can answer it. A No. istaken. Objection. The word for liar, isn't Same objection. in fact, Katie Larson confronted you about the fact that you were overly involved in the Brian Barnes investigation. She went into your of?ce and told you, you can't be involved in these investigations, did she not? A Words to that effect, yes. And Katie Larson, when she expressed that to you, wasn't she expressing her concern that the investigation needed to have integrity. and by you butting into and involving yourself in the investigation, it was appearance of lacking integrity? going to have the A I don't think she ever used the word "integrity." 1 think she was mistaken about my mistaken about my role in monito investigations. role in investigations, ring internal What do you believe your role -- what was she mistaken in 25 in Katie Larson's investigations into Brian Barnes? 25 her views on your role in investigations? Page 138 Page 140 1 A I monitor. I keep track of. lam briefed on all 1 A That I should not be updated on investigations and 2 important ongoing investigations. That's different than 2 should not be asking questions about investigations. I 3 involving myself in the investigation. 3 should not be keeping track of investigations because 4 So when you stand -- stood over Katie Larson?s desk with 4 somehow that would affect the outcome of the 5 your arms folded and glared at her, was that monitoring 5 investigation, and she is mistaken. 6 and keeping track of an investigation? 6 Is it your testimony that it's appropriate for the 7 MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. [t 7 Loudermili chief to, for instance, limit the scope of an 3 assumes facts not in evidence. 8 investigation and tell investigators who they can and 9 9 cannot interview? (By Ms. Kays) Actually, it's in her testimony. so go ahead. A That never happened. So Katie Larson is a liar? A No. It's true, is it not, that, during your tenure as sheriff, you have regularly gone into IIU and yelled at detective sergeants during the course of their investigation? A That has never happened. You have never yelled at a detective sergeant during the course of an investigation? A I have never yelled at a detective sergeant during the course of investigation or anytime else. So when witnesses come in and testify to that, including former commander of llU, you are going to call them a liar? Page 139 A I think there are times when that's appropriate, depending on which direction the investigator is going. And partially that's for - to help out the employee, if nothing else, to get these investigations thorough, complete, and ?nished on a timely basis. But how are you helping -- how are you helping the accused employee by trying to limit an investigator who knows -- would you agree that an investigator is going to know the facts of an investigation be A Yes. tterthan you? And have you ever conducted an assignment as a detective? A Yes. And as a detective, you want to follow the facts of an investigation. do you not? A I do. 25 Imean. you follow the evidence; right? Page 141 Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 36 (Pages 138 to 141) Byers Anderson Court Reportersitin. ?ideoconferencing SeattlefTacoma, Washing Ye . And if someone is standing there with a roadblock, telling you not to follow the evidence or to follow where the evidence is taking you, how is that not interfering in an investigation and not helping the accused employee? A Well, this was a -- this is not a criminal investigation. This is an employee investigation and what you -- what you are dancing around the edges of is, I told them they did not need to interview the people that signed off on 10 Tiffany Atwood's fraudulent applications for repayment. 11 That's what] specifically told them. We'll deal 12 with those later. It doesn't affect the fact that she 13 was criminally and fraudulently putting in for expenses 14 that she was not authorized to apply for. That's what we 15 are talking about. 16 So it didn't affect her investigation at all because 17 it's about the -- her actions, not about somebody else's 18 actions. And if she wants to try to justify that at some 19 future time such as a Loudermill, that's ?ne. 20 0 Okay. Well, respectfully, i wasn't talking about Tiffany 21 Atwood. I was talking about it in the context of Brian 22 Barnes. And are you certain you haven?t made up your 23 mind up about Tiffany Atwood? Because it sure sounds 2?1 like you have. Okayfact, involve your -- did you andior Mr. Barringer get into Katie Larson's open case file and look at various investigative steps that were taken during her investigations into Mr. Barnes? A What do you mean by get into her case ?le? 0 Look at them. A I don't understand what you mean. Look at them over her shoulder or via the BlueTeam process? Any way that you can access it. 10 A No. 11 You can only speak for yourself in that regard? 12 A Yes, I can only speak for myself. 13 Do you recall having conversations with then commander of 14 IIU, D.J. Nesel, where he told you that you were 15 intimidating the investigating detective sergeants? 15 A No. 17 Did you, in fact, take effort to intimidate investigating 13 detective sergeants in IIU during the course of an 19 investigation? 20 A Absolutely not. 21 And just so I'm clear, it's your testimony that, even 22 though you hold the position of Loudermill chief, you can 23 get involved in investigations and tell the investigator 24 who to investigate -- or who to talk to or not talk to? 25 A I have not made up my mind because I haven't heard any 25 MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. Page 142 Page 144 1 mitigating factors that she wants to present at the 1 Mischaracterizes the testimony. 2 Loudermill, which is her right. And she can bring up 2 THE WITNESS: I am allowed to be 3 also that she thinks we should interview a different -- 3 briefed on investigations. I am allowed to be updated on 4 additional people at the Louderrnill. She can do that. 4 investigations. I am allowed to review investigatory 5 The Loudermill doesn't happen in a vacuum. By the 5 work as it goes along, and I am allowed to direct the 5 time she walks in my door, I will review the entire case. 5 investigation from the standpoint of we don't need to go 7 I will know everything about that case. So whether I 7 in this direction. We need to concentrate on this 8 know then or now or whether I get the full package at the 8 particular aspect of the investigation. 9 time of the Louderrnill makes no difference. All I have 9 (By Ms. Kaye) So the answer is, yes, you can do that? 10 to do is give her -- just give her the due process to 10 A No. The answer is just as I have said it. It is not an 11 listen to what has -- she has to say at the Loudermill 12 and then make a decision. 13 So is due -- what does due process mean to you in the 14 context of being a Loudermill chief? 15 A Giving her the opportunity to come to me -- or any 13 employee -- come to me and present mitigating factors 17 that they would like me to consider and ask for 13 additional investigation if they think additional 19 investigation needs to occur, because by the time it gets 20 to a Loudermill, there has already been a ?nding. The 21 complaint is sustained, and there has already been a 22 ?nding and a recommendation for discipline when it gets 23 to me. That's the purpose of a Loudennill. 24 0 That's your understanding of Loudermiil? 25 A That's exactly my understanding of Loudermill. Page 143 11 answer -- a question that can be answered with a simple 12 yes or no. So I stand by my longer answerhypothetical setting, a detective in 14 IIU is investigating employee. You go in and you tel! 15 that detective, i don?t want you to talk to this person. 15 I want you to focus your energy on talking to these 17 witnesses. 1B In your mind, as the sheriff, that?s appropriate? 19 A It depends on the circumstances, but I can conceive of 20 situations where that would be appropriate, yes. 21 Is it also your point of view, as the Loudermill chief, 22 that you can solicit and encourage complainants from the 23 outside to come forward and lodge complaints against 24 members? 25 A Yes. Page 145 37 (Pages 142 to 145) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington 1 2 . And where do you get that authority? A I am the sheriff. I can ask people to - anybody in the department can do that, not just me. Anybody can suggest to a complainant that they ?le a complaint if they feel aggrieved. Did you -- there is a department created by statute with the King County Council called the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight; correct? A Yes. And did you inform the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight that you had been the subject of a rape allegation by Ms. Holland? A No. And they wouldn't. have had access to that information and they don't have access to that today, do they? A No. And if it had been they also would not have had access to it. But if had conducted a proper investigation into the matter, they would. A That?s correct. There was an investigation into an individual or the subject employee is a gentleman named Jim Triller; correct? A Yes. And during that investigation, Mr. Triller was Page 146 23 24 So, for example, I have a couple of times said, it's confidential, and then this entire line of inquiry. But] never said, okay. Stop there. We willjust do that after the fact when the transcript is ready. MS. KAYS: Butjust so you know, I am expediting this to give to Mr. Van Blaricom and I will supplement it with whatever your confidential designations are MR. I'm sorry? MS. KAYS: You can do your highlights but it's not going to stop me from just giving it to Mr. Van Blaricom. I'll let him know that you have things designated con?dentially in the interim, unless you can get it cranked out. MR. WINTERBAUER: Well, [don't recall whether that was -- i don't recall off the top of my head whether that's consistent with the stipulated confidentiality agreements. If it is, have no problem- If it's not, then I'll have to take it up with you. MS. KAYS: Okay. Well, [just need you to expedite it then so I can get Mr. Van Blaricom his deposition before -- before his deposition. That's my whole point. And i think it's consistent with it too. so.. 25 (By Ms. Kays) Who is Rodney Chinnick? (Dm?mt?-hWM?h .I. interviewed by i believe it was Captain Anderson and Mr. Mullinax; correct? A Yes. At the conclusion of that interview, you came into the room and you are documented as being on tape with Mr. Triller; correct? A That's correct. Do you remember what you said to Mr. Triller during that -- the end of that interview? A I ordered him to quit spreading the rumor that Chris Barringer had failed his polygraph because it was not true. You testified earlier you have not, in fact. seen the results of the polygraph; correct? A i have not seen the paperwork from the Seattle Police Department. I have seen the paperwork that says he passed his polygraph. And is that from the Seattle Police Department? A No. Who was that from? A Virginia Gleason, who was the HR manager at the time. MR. WINTERBAUER: That testimony is marked confidential, also orjust for you after the fact. I am going in. Whoever is designated goes in and designates. Page 147 (Dm?mt?-th?h Page 148 A He is a sergeant in the sheriff?s of?ce. And Rodney Chinnick was, in fact, a captain up until a handful of weeks ago, wasn't he? A Yes. And Rodney -- you had come and approached Mr. Chinnick while he was captain, was a captain about and asked him to be the new commander of correct? A That's correct. And Mr. Chinnick declined because he expressed reservations about your over-involvement with did he not? A No. That's not correct. Is it your testimony that Mr. Chinnick wasn?t concerned about how you used the system - MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. Sorry. Go ahead. (By Ms. Kays) Is it yourtestimony that Mr. Chinnick did not express concerns about how you use and involve yourself in the IIU system such that he didn't want to be a part of it? THE WITNESS: Not to me. 0 (By Ms. Kays) Who did he report that to then? A Idon't know. And didn't Mr. Chinnick voluntarily resign from his position of captain in protest of having to go to Page 149 38 (Pages 146 to 149) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattleiTacoma, Washington 1 A He did resign because he did not want to go to IIU, I 1 testimony? 2? assume, yes. 2 A No. - 3 What is your relationship with Mr. Chinnick today? 3 Have you reviewed any of the declarations he has filed in 4 A Fine. 4 open court? 5 Why didn?t you decline his resignation from captain and, 5 A No. 6 say, talk with him about what the deal was and why he 5 Who is Mark Stockdale? 7 didn't want to be in liU? 7 A He is an attorney for the prosecutor's office. 8 A He had already told me why he didn't want to be in IIU. 3 And he advises your department, does he not? 9 And what's your account of why he didn't want to be in 9 A Yes. 10 llU? 10 He advises you in particular, does he not? 11 A My account is what he told me. It's the truth. First 11 A On what? I don't understand. 12 reason he gave me is because he didn't want to drive 12 Well, you are one of his clients as -- he works in the 13 downtown. Second reason he gave me is, he felt we would 13 civil division of the King County Prosecutor's Office; 14 probably butt heads and he didn't think that was a good 14 correct? 15 way to work. And so he didn't want to come down -- 15 A Yes. 15 didn't want to take thejob, and then he went back his clients that he provides advice to; 17 office and resigned his commission. 17 correct? 13 And didn't it give you a moment for personal reflection 13 A I being the sheriff, or me representing the sheriff's 19 when you had a captain telling you, i don't want to take 19 office? 20 this position because I am going to butt heads with you 20 Both. 21 because? Didn't that give you any pause for personal 21 A 1 don't think he advises me. He is not my attorney, as 22 reflection? 22 far as I know, but he is certainly the attorney for the 23 A And because he didn't want to drive downtown. So the 23 sheriff?s office. 24 answer is. no, it didn't. 24 And Mr. Stockdale has been attorney for the sheriff's 25 Mr. Chinnick had previously served as a detective 25 office for how long? Page 150 Page 152 1 sergeant in correct? 1 A ldon't know. 2 A Yes. 2 How often do you have contact with Mr. Stockdale? 3 And that was white or shortly after you became sheriff; 3 A Couple-three, four, ?ve times a year maybe at the most. 4 correct? 4 I don't know. Not very often. 5 A I think so. I don't know what the time frame was or how 5 Mr. Stockdate has been referenced during the testimony of 5 long he was there. 6 Captain Nesei as being involved in various, or present at 7 And he has a familiarity with how involved you are in IIU 7? various meetings when key discussions were had. 3 from that experience, does he not? 3 Are you aware of that? 9 9 A Am I aware of the deposition, or am I aware that he has A I don't know what his familiarity is. Have you instructed llU commanders not to investigate certain employees? A I don't know. Do you recall teliing DJ. Nesel and Mike Mullinax you are not to investigate Shawn Ledford for being dishonest during an IIU interview? A No. I don't think that ever happened. Are you saying it didn't happen? A i am saying it didn't happen. You are saying that you never told Captain Nesel that l'll focus on Captain Nesel. You never told Captain Nesel, don't -- you are not going to investigate or stand down'from investigating Mr. Ledford for being dishonest during an IIU investigation? A I never said that. Are you -- have you reviewed Captain Nesel's deposition Page 151 been at meetings where key discussions were held? The latter part. A Yes. And Mr. Stockdaie provides you through your -- your department through you with advice on a variety of legal matters? A Yes. Including employment-related matters? A Yes. And Mr. Stockdale was, up until, i think -- I don't know how long ago. The court record will bear it out. He was an attorney of record representing the County in this lawsuit for a signi?cant period of time, was he not? A For a period of time. I don't know whether it's significant or not. Mr. Stockdaie, when he is carrying out those functions as Page 153 39 (Pages 150 to 153) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court Seattleri'acoma, Washington coonwmm-Ith?x a legal representative of the department, has the ability to speak on your behalf, the department's behalf; correct? MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. The question is vague. Also calls for a legal conclusion. (By Ms. Kays) Go ahead. A is he allowed to speak? Does he have the authority to speak on behalf of the department? As to various legal positions that you are talking. A i guess, yes. Write letters, saying, I am representing the sheriff's department. Here is our position on this issue? A Sure. And he has the ability to contact witnesses that he believes may become deponents or may testify in this matter on your behalf; correct? A iassume so. And Mr. Stockdale Captain Nesel testi?ed that Mr. Stockdale engaged in conduct with respect to him, threatening him if he testi?ed in a certain manner. that he would be subject to discipline. Were you aware of that? A Yes. A After. Who is Shawn Ledford? A Shawn Ledford is the police chief, the major at Shoreline, City of Shoreline, one of our contract cities. During the time period that Mr. Ledford was the chief at Shoreline, he was -- he became the subject of an EEO complaint by Sergeant Neff and Deputy Julie Blessum; correct? A Yes. During the pendency of the complaint while it was pending. while it was being investigating -- investigated, did you have conversations with Chief Ledford about the subject of the investigation? A No, I don't think so. Do you. in fact, recall telling Chief Ledford, quote, Don?t worry about it, "it" meaning the investigation, while the investigation was pending? A No. i could have, but don?t know. And why. as Loudermill chief, would you tell Chief Ledford not to worry about an open investigation into allegations that he discriminated against women at Shoreline? A Probably -- 24 Up and to and including termination. 24 MR. WINTERBAUER: I will object to the 25 Were you aware of that? 25 extent it mischaracterizes his testimony. Page 154 Page 156 1 A I am aware the discussion was had. I don't know. I am 1 Go ahead. 2 not aware of the - the speci?cs of it. 2 THE WITNESS: If i did say that. it 3 And Mr. Stockdale was acting on your behalf when he 3 was not in the context of don?t worry about the 4 communicated that statement to Captain Nesei, wasn't he? 4 resolution; don't worry about the fact that you are under 5 A He was acting on behalf of King County and the sheriff?s 5 investigation. still implicit in in that, that you 6 office as part of King County. 6 still have a job to do. Hey, don?t worry about it. Just 7 MS. KAYS: Do you have the time? 7 keep doing your job. It is not a value judgment on the 3 MR. FULLER: 2:16. 8 results of the investigation or the merit of the 9 MS. KAYS: Do you want to just take a 9 investigation or anything else. 10 quick break? 10 (By Ms. Kaye) In fact, didn't you -- didn't you tell IIU 11 MR. WINTERBAUER: Sure. 11 not to conduct an investigation into Ledford predicated 12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off 12 upon Sergeant Ne?'s complaint? 13 the record. The time is 2:17 pm. 13 A Which -- what are we talking about? Which complaint? 14 (Recess from 2:17 pm. to 14 Her complaint against -- 15 2:28 pm.) 15 A The EEO complaint? 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here marks the 16 -- Mr. Ledford, yes. 17 beginning of DVD No. 3 in the deposition of John 17 A The EEO complaint? 18 Urquhart. We are back on the record. The time is 18 Yes. 19 2:was investigated. 20 (By Ms. Kays) Sir, who were the what were the name or 20 Were you aware that while that investigation was pending 21 names of the agents that contacted. Mr. Mullinax? 21 into Chief Ledford, that Chief Ledford and Sergeant Chad 22 A I don't know. 22 Devore were conducting an investigation into Sergeant 23 Did you look up Ms. Holland's divorce papenivork 23 Neil in her use of bookkeeping procedures while she was 24 proceedings in the court ?le after the conversation with 24 at Shoreline? 25 Mr. Mullinax and Mr. Anderson? 25 A it's my understanding there was no investigation that was Page 155 Page 157 40 (Pages 154 to 157) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington being done and certainly wasn't being done by Major Ledford. Have you reviewed Major Ledford?s testimony? A No. Where he testi?es numerous occasions that he was supervising the investigation that Chad Devore was conducting into Sergeant Neff while there was an open EEO investigation into his conduct? A It is not my understanding that it was an investigation. whatever. It was not off-the-books. It was not an investigation, at least by my intent. It was an effort to get to the bottom of what was going on with those records out there that are incredibly important and we had to ?nd out what happened, not only, if you remember, not only with Sergeant Neff but with Captain Strathy and Captain Stensland as well that were also involved in all of that. When you were informed of -- I'll use Major Ledford's 10 Okay. 10 word, the investigation that he and Mr. Devore were 11 A it was a review or an audit. My understanding was and 11 conducting into Sergeant Neff, it didn?t raise a red flag 12 what I asked for was a review or an audit of the IIU -- 12 in your mind that here is a guy that Diana Nest made an 13 or the CI ?les, con?dential informant ?les, at 13 allegation of discrimination against and he is conducting 14 Shoreline. 14 an investigation or an audit or whatever you want to call 15 Okay. Well - 15 it into her work product? 16 A So he can characterize it as an investigation. That was 15 MR. WINTERBAUER: amjust going to 17 not my intention. 17 interpose an objection to the extent it mischaracterizes 13 But it was your intention to have you call it an audit 13 Ledford's testimony. 19 or a review of the work product of Sergeant Neff 19 Go ahead. 20 conducted by Chad Devore, the guy that replaces her, and 29 THE WITNESS: There was definitely a 21 Chief Ledford who is the person that she is accusing of 21 red flag there. and we needed -- I needed to decide. We 22 discriminatory conduct? 22 needed to decide, and there was some talk about that, 23 A Chad Devore reported to Ledford, so I doubt if Ledford 23 whether we should continue with -- turn this into an IIU 24 was doing the investigation, if there was one. Wasn't 24 investigation or not for this very reason because it 25 doing the review; wasn't doing the audit. That was Chad 25 could be seen as retaliatory because Sergeant Neff had Page 158 Page 160 1 Devore that was doing that and eventually would present 1 already ?led a complaint against usI so we talked about 2 the results of that audit to me for a decision, whether 2 that and we hashed it out. 3 we are going to do an investigation or not. 3 And my view was that we are not going to sweep these 4 So if Chief Ledford's testified that he supervised the 4 things under the carpet, these types of things just 5 investigation conducted by Chad Devore into Sergeant 5 because we fear a lawsuit down the road from you. And so 5 Neff, that it occurred over a seven or more month period, 6 I said, we are going to do an IIU investigation and let 7 that you were aware of it, as was Mr. Stockdale, you are 7 the chips fall where they may. 8 going to deny that? 3 We are also going to look at all the other Cl units 9 A What I am saying is that Major Ledford is welcome to 9 in the department and ?nd out where they stood as far as 10 describe it any way he wants. If he wants to call it an 10 the paperwork is concerned, and we are going to 11 investigation, that?s ?ne. What I said my intent was 11 investigate Strathy and Stensland at the same time since 12 there that there would be an audit or a review using 12 they were the supervisors of Sergeant Neff. ?13 those words of what was going on out there. These are 13 (By Ms. Kays) I don't think that you answered my 14 the Cl ?les. 14 question but I will move on. 15 When -- 15 A You asked me about red flags. Yes, there was a red ?ag. 15 A I am not disputing what Ledford -- how Ledford may have 15 I just disagree about what you think should have been a 17 culled it or described it. 17 red ?ag or not, so I think I was very responsive to your 13 And the reason why you're not calling it an investigation 18 question. 19 like Major Ledford or Chief Ledford is, is because that's 19 So in terms of the red flag that you thought you 20 an off-the?book investigation into someone who has lodged 20 acknowledged that it gives the appearance of retaliation? 21 a complaint of discrimination againsthim; right? 21 A acknowledged-that it could give the appearance of 22 A Not at all. I don't get this off-the-book comment. I 22 retaliation if someone wanted to twist it that way. In 23 have never heard that before until D.J. Nesel started 23 fact, it was not retaliation. It needed to be done. 24 talking about it. He makes it sound like this is some 24 The issues that came out of the audit were 25 Jason Boume movie with the CIA doing an off-the-books 25 signi?cant and serious and they needed to be Page 159 Page 161 41 (Pages 158 to 161) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers 3. Anderson Court SeattleITacoma, Washington 1 investigated. Captain Anderson agreed that they needed 1 was the commander of correct? 2- to be investigated; Chad Devore agreed they needed to be 2 A Captain Summers, yes. 3 investigated. 3 And you asked Captain Nesel to come and take over that 4 So when you are presented with the results of this 4 spot after you became sheriff? 5 A -- review? 5 A Yes. 5 Major Ledford says investigation. You call it reviewcome and take over that spot? 7 And it gets turned in to an IIU investigation. didn't 7 A Because I thought he could do the job and Virginia 8 you, in fact, say, oh, good, we have got something on 5 Gleason recommended him highly. 9 her? . 9 Are you familiar with Captain Nesel outside of -- I'm 10 A Absolutely not. 15 sorry. 11 And to be clear, the IIU investigation commenced, got its 11 Before you became sheriff, were you familiar with 12 number. It commenced after Sergeant Neff had ?led 12 Captain Nesel and his work? 13 her lawsuit; correct? 13 A i knew him. 14 A I don't know. Without reviewing the documents, I don't 1?1 Didn't you work in Southwest together as sergeants? 15 know. 15 A Yeah, we did. That's right. lforgot that. 15 It had certainly, was commenced after she had filed her 15 Mr. or Captain Nesel has a military background; 17 complaint with human resources or her EEO complaint; 17 correct? 18 correct? 18 A Yes. 19 A is this after she left Shoreline? So about November of 19 He is a Marine? 2'3 2013? 20 A Yes. 21 '13, uh?huh. 21 Do you hold Captain Nesel in high regard? 22 A Okay. Yeah. I don't dispute that then. But, again, you 22 A I don't really have an opinion of him at this point one 23 don't get -- you don't get a bye because you ?led an EEO 23 way orthe other. 24 complaint. 24 At the time you had him take over the IIU commander spot, 25 Okay. There is no question before you. Your attorney 25 you must have held him in high regard? Page 162 Page 164 1 can ask you questions. You don't get just to talk here. 1 A relied on Virginia Gleason's recommendation but 2 get to ask you questions. Okay? Those are the rules. 2 [did think he could do thejob. 3 A was trying to -- I was trying to elaborate on my 3 And just for the record, Ms. Gleason was the head of 4 previous answer. 4 human resources? 5 Yeah. And if I was interested, Iwould ask you to 5 A Professional standards section, yes. 5 elaborate. 5 And is that professional standards section, does that 7 A Very well. 7 mean human resources? 5 MR. WINTERBAUER: Counsel, you are 8 A As well. Yes. Both. 9 being unbelievably argumentative and pissy. if he needs 9 When you came on board as the elected sheriff and asked 10 to clarify an answer, he is allowed to. 15 Captain Nesel to head IIU, you tasked him with 11 MS. KAYS: Excuse me. You actually 11 investigating on parallel tracks, the component of 12 said that i have been, quotelunquote, pissy on the 12 the SAU lawsuit allegations as well as an outside 13 record? 13 attorney, Ms. Patty Eakes, conducting the EEO side of it; 14 MR. WINTERBAUER: i think you just 14 correct? 15 were right there. 15 A That?s correct. We had new allegations that came out as 15 MS. KAYS: Wow. Nice professionalism. 15 a result of the lawsuit. 17 (By Ms. Kays) Who is we talked about Captain Nesel. 17 And you didn't have any lack of confidence in Captain 15 but who is D.J. Nesel? 18 Nesel in conducting his role as -- in investigating those 19 A He is a captain in the sheriff?s of?ce. 19 allegations, did you? 25 And where does he currently work? 20 A That's correct. 21 A He is the police chief of Maple Valley. .21 in fact, prior to Captain Nesel being tasked with-7 22 Prior to being the chief at Maple Valley, Captain Nesel 22 investigating that aspect of it for ilU, the SAU 23 held what position? 23 allegations, you had previously discussed with him having 24 A He was the captain in charge of internal investigations. 24 Katie Larson conduct the investigation for had you 25 25 not? And at the time that you became the sheriff, Mr. Summers Page 163 Page 165 42 (Pages 162 to 165) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattleITacoma, Washington A I think that's right. Yeah. I had forgotten that. - And Ms. Larson was identi?ed by you because she is a good investigator; correct? A Yes. And Katie Larson is not only a good investigator but is she not highly regarded in the department? A Yes. And by me. You said that you I believe I had asked you if you held Captain Nesel in high regard in terms of your opinion, and you said you didn't really have an opinion of him now? A That's correct. 0 Has something changed from the point that you brought him on as IIU commander to today? A Yes. What's thathas described his tenure at IIU is not accurate. 0 What's not accurate that you've reviewed? 1 2 Do you think that's why Mr. Stockdale engaged in threatening behavior towards him? MR. WINTERBAUER: Objections. Assumes facts not in evidence. And I'm sorry. And it's speculative, calls for speculation. (By Ms. Kays) Go ahead. A I have no idea what Stockdale, the interaction between Stockdale and Nesel was. You had -- never mind. Was Mr. Triller?s investigation, the one we spoke about I think before the break, where you came in at the end of his interview, that was an llU investigation; correct? A Yes. And that investigation was not reviewed by correct? A I don't know. Certain types of - certain types of actions are not reviewed by correct? A Correct. 20 A I haven't reviewed anything. I am primarily basing it on 20 MS. KAYS: And OLEO is Of?ce of Law 21 the P-l article that apparently was taken from his 21 Enforcement Oversight. 22 deposition. Me yelling at sergeants, that never 22 (By Ms. Kays) What are those actions? Non-investigatory 23 happened. Him telling me to back down, that never 23 matter, you said? 24 happened. Just his general descriptions are just either 24 A Nll'ills and SALs, I believe. Supervisor action log, S-A-L. 25 not true or inaccurate. 25 So the IIU papenrrork documenting the investigation into Page 166 Page 168 1 Are is the facts that he testi?ed in his deposition 1 Mr. Triller would conclude vmether that you yelled at sergeants in IIU, detective sergeants, 2 a SAL. or something different; correct? 3 that did not happen? 3 A Well, if it was a NIM, non-investigative matter, wouldn't 4 A That did -- 4 have been investigated. SALs could be investigated. I 5 And it's not true? 5 don't know what the results were with Triller. 5 A That did not happen and it's not true. 5 MR. WINTERBAUER: Thank you. 7 Him telling you to back down in your involvement in IIU 7 (Exhibit No. 6 marked for 3 investigation, that did not happen 8 identification.) 9 A That -- 9 MS. KAYS: 6? 10 -- and is not true? 10 MR. WINTERBAUER: Is that 6? 11 A That did not happen and it's not true. 11 MS. KAYS: Yep. 12 Captain Nesel testi?ed that you made disparaging remarks 12 (By Ms. Kays) Showing you Exhibit 6, sir, look in the 13 about women in his presence on multiple occasions? 13 upper right-hand corner where it says Number." 14 A That did not happen and it's not true. 14 A Yes. 15 0 Captain Nesel also testi?ed that, in his opinion, you 15 0 See where it says 2015-151"? 16 have deep-seated issues with women? 16 A Yes. 17 A That's not true. 17 Would that make it a 13 What's your explanation for why Captain Nesel. former 1B A Yes. 19 Marine, someone you brought on to be commander of IIU, 19 And it says "Persons Interviewed: Jim Triller, Deputy 20 what's your take on why he would say these things then? 20 Tom Liu"; correct? 21 A I have no idea. 21 A Yes. 22 MR. WINTERBAUER: Objection. Calls 22 And then if you go down to Mr. Mullinax's 4.2 entry on 23 for speculation. 23 the ?rst page? 24 (By Ms. Keys) Go ahead. 24 A Yes. 25 25 A lhave no idea. Icouldn't speculate. Page 167 Sorry. It makes a reference to you on the last paragraph Page 169 43 (Pages 166 to 169) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington 1 there, that you had a conversation with Captain Anderson 1 Exhibit 6 ljust showed you; correct? 2- and Mr. Muilinax regarding Mr. Triller? 2 A Yes. 3 A Okay. 3 All right. Captain Anderson documents that that you 4 And then if you go to the last page of Mr. Muilinax's 4 indicate it?s not necessary to interview, I believe. it's 5 follow-up, the last sentence reads, "This investigation 5 Ms. Atwood or Mr. Burrows; correct? 5 will be closed as a non-investigative matter"; correct? 5 A What paragraph are we talking about? I'd like to reread 7 A Yes. 7 that myself. 3 Okay. So the Triller investigation, does that resolve 3 Go to the second page. second paragraph from the bottom. 9 the issue for you, that it was a 9 The date is 9MB of ?15 at 1320 hours. It says, quote, 10 A Well, i don't think this was a Triller investigation. 10 Sergeant Mullinax and I met with Sheriff Urquhart to 11 Well -- 11 brief him. It was decided that there is no reason to 12 A Because there is no accused employees listed. This was 12 interview Detective Burrows and Atwood at this time 13 an investigation to find out where the information was 13 because we eliminated them during our interview with 14 coming from that Triller was spreading around, and that's 14 Deputy Liu; correct? 15 why he was interviewed. But it doesn?t mean he was the 15 A That's what it says, yes. 13 subject of the investigation. 15 Is that inaccurate? 17 Mr. Triller was given an A150 thoughappear as a witness. Doesn't mean -- just because you 13 So that was your you were a part of that discussion? 19 get an A150 doesn't mean that you are the subject of an 19 A Yes. 20 investigation. 20 And do you concur with the fact that it wasn't necessary 21 So the Triller matter was a correct? 21 to speak with Ms. Atwood or Mr. Burrows? 22 A Yes. That's correct. 22 A I think your original question, when we started this line 23 And because it's a NIM, the Triller matter would not have 23 of questioning, was, did 1 direct them not to interview 24 been sent per King County ordinance or statute to 24 Atwood and Burrows. 25 correct? 25 Uh?huh. Page 170 Page 172 1 A That's correct. 1 A And that is -- nothing could be farther from the truth. 2 And the purpose of OLEO is to -- is the citizen oversight 2 You wanted them to? 3 of internal investigations and use of force issues? 3 A No. But you are making it sound like I directed them not 4 A No. The purpose of OLEO is of citizen oversight of the 4 to, and that is not what this paragraph says. This was a 5 sheriff?s of?ce. 5 consensus that the three of us came to and they certainly 5 Okay. 6 agreed as read this paragraph here. 7 A That's just one aspect concerned about giving directive to or not 3 Do you believe that the Triller matter should have been 3 interview someone when you said earlier in your testimony 9 classi?ed as a non-investigative matter, or a 9 it's completely your prerogative. 10 A If they had no further information, then I think a NIM 10 Why are you defensive about it? 11 was appropriate. Nothing more to investigate. 11 A i am not defensive at all. i am trying to get you to 12 During the Tritler investigation, as documented i think 12 make sure that you ask me questions that are on point 13 on Exhibit 1, Captain Anderson's, I think that's 13 that don't twist what the facts are, and you certainly 14 Exhibit 1. Sorry. it's just right in front of the 14 did with that particular question. That's why I am 15 background? 15 calling you on it. That?s not accurate. I did not 13 MR. WINTERBAUER: This one down here? 15 direct them not to interview those two. 17 MS. KAYS: No. Right here. 17 Okay. Earlier i had asked you regarding the sexual 13 MR. WINTERBAUER: Right here? 13 harassment training that was a condition of the 19 MS. KAYS: No. This guy right here. ?19 settlement with Detectives Ferguson, Priebe-Olson, and 20 MR. WINTERBAUER: Okay. 2'3 Luitgaarden, and i had mentioned that there has been 21 THE That's No. 4. 2? testimony that during a training session deputies were 22 MR. WINTERBAUER: 4. 22 joking and sitting on each other's laps and saying 23 MS. KAYS: Oh, sorry. 23 ha-ha-ha, words to that effect. 1 mean, we can't do 24 (By Ms. Kaye) During in Captain Anderson's chronology 24 this. 25 there in Exhibit 4, that?s the same NIM number for the 25 Did you investigate or were you noti?ed of any of Page 171 Page 173 44 (Pages 170 to 173) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers 8: Anderson Court Seattlel?l'acoma, Washington that misconduct? 1 A No. Short, relatively short. All of them spoke for a 1 2 A I don't think I was noti?ed. I may have heard a rumor 2 relatively short period of time and all were there in 3 of it, but certainly nobody came to me and filed a 3 support of Dewey. 4 complaint or said anything speci?c about it. 4 Did each of the witnesses that you mentioned, did they 5 And you think that sends the right message about sexual 5 also provide a written statement? 6 harassment training? 8 A I think so. 7 A That kind of behavior? 7 Okay. 9 Yeah. 3 A Yeah, I think so. 9 A No. idon?t think -- I think that's atrocious. 9 You said that just going down the list you said that 19 Who is Jesse Anderson? 10 you called, I believe you said you called 11 A Jesse Anderson is a captain in the sheriff's of?ce 11 Mr. Kirkpatrick -- 12 currently assigned to Precinct 3. Just prior to that 12 A I did. 13 job, he was the IIU commander. 13 -- one time. 14 And do you have an opinion on Captain Anderson's work? 14 And when did you call him approximately and for what 15 A He is a good man. 15 reason? 15 Did you -- you haven't reviewed his deposition testimony? 15 A I can't remember exactly when it was, but I had heard 17 A I have not. 17 from Major Jutilla, who was in charge of Metro, that 13 Did you know that he testi?ed that he feared retaliation 13 there was a considerable amount of angst within the 19 for testifying in this case? 19 drivers at Metro, especially the night owl drivers, the 20 A I didn't know that. 29 ones that drive at night, that nothing was going to 21 And D.J. Nesel expressed the same fear. 21 happen because of Caivin's -- Kirkpatrick's complaint 22 Did you know that? 22 against Caballero and Shoblom, and the union is upset and 23 A I did not. 23 they think it is going to be a big whitewash, on and on 2? Did you have contact with a gentleman named Calvin 24 and on. So I called Calvin and told him who Iwas and 25 Kirkpatrick, a Metro bus driver? 25 assured him that we would do a thorough and complete Page174 Page176 1 A Did I have contact with him? 1 investigation. 2 Yes. 2 And what else did you discuss? 3 A Sure. 3 A That was all. 4 How often have you had contact with Mr. Kirkpatrick? 4 And did you call him at work? On his cellphone? At 5 A Maybe four times. 5 home? 5 One of those times was during Mr. Burns' Loudermili? 6 A I don't remember. Probably not at work, 7' A Yes. 7 You said that you saw him at mediation. 3 What were the other times before that, sir? 3 What do you mean by that? 9 A I cailed him on the telephone oncesued the County and there was mediation. I saw him to mediation. I got a text from him once, twice, and that's 19 then. 11 all I know. 11 And did the matter settle? 12 Okay. 12 A Yes. 13 A That's all I remember. 13 And what was the amount it settled for? 14 So the Loudermill hearing, what was the nature of your 14 A I don't know. 15 contact with him there? Was it was he present? Did 15 You were at the mediation the whole time? 15 he speak? 16 A was. 17 A Dewey Burns brought in four character witnesses from -- 17 Were you present during discussion over monetary amounts? three from Metro and one person that he knew that 19 A I was. 19 testi?ed testi?ed that spoke at the end of the 19 And your testimony is, you don't know what it ultimately 20 Loudermill. So after the Loudennill was all over, I 20 settled for? 21 allowed them to come in and speak on behalf of Dewey 21 A That?s my testimony. 22 Burns. 22 And when did this occur, sir? 23 And do you recall what Mr. Kirkpatrick had to say? 23 A A month ago. I don't know. 24 A No. 24 And you said that you described having -- either 25 25 receiving or sending two texts with Mr. Kirkpatrick. Do you recall how long he spoke for? Page 175 Page 177 45(Pagesi74to177) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington Explain those to me. 1 A i did. - A i think that he texted me after our first teiephone 2 And you were asked about you were asked about this 1 2 3 conversation, said thank you. And then he texted me 3 conversation during the arbitration of Mr. Burns where he 4 after the night of the mediation and said thank you for 4 was seeking to be reinstated; correct? 5 being there. He really appreciated it. And i said, you 5 A Yes. 6 are more than welcome, words to that effect. Pretty 5 And to be clear. you did not ?re Mr. Burns for engaging 7 innocuous. 7 in acts of sexual harassment, did you? 8 Did you have any email communications with 3 A That's correct. [did not. 9 Mr. Kirkpatrick? 9 During the conversation that you had with Mr. Burns after 10 A I don't know. i don't think so, but it?s certainly 10 he was initially put on administrative leave, you 11 possible, but i don?t remember any. 11 indicated to him that you would take care of him, did you 12 Do you have an opinion of Mr. Kirkpatrick? 12 not? 13 A Sure. 13 A I did not. 14 What's your opinion of him? 14 You deny making that statement? 15 A I think he's a good man. I think he was fearful after 15 A do. 13 this occurred. 16 Do you deny saying, DeweyI this phone call never 17 Have you ever worked with Mr. Kirkpatrick? 17 happenedyour - this is your opinion after the 19 Once the MU process worked its way through, Sergeant 20 approximately three two in-person interactions. 20 Burns testi?ed at Loudermill that he was noti?ed of a 21 guess. At the mediation did you meet him -- did you talk 21 written document saying what the recommendation was from 22 with him in person? 22 the command staff, including termination, and he 23 A Yes. 23 telephoned you then, did he not? 24 Okay. 24 A Yes. 25 A And it lasted ail daylong, so, you know, there is 25 And Mr. Burns testi?ed that you stated that you were Page 178 Page 180 1 back-and-forth. 1 going to have to fire him, but if he, just paraphrasing, 2 And then a couple of text messages? 2 kept his act clean for a couple years, you'd hire him 3 A Yeah. 3 back. Did you say that? 4 All right. 4 A 1 may have said words to that effect, yes. 5 A Ithink he is a good person. 5 The part about hiring him back? 6 You have made statements, public statements. concerning 6 A Yes. 7 Amy Shobiom and Lou Caballero and the various allegations 7 Did you call llU while -- during the time Sergeant 3 that have been brought against them during your tenure as 3 Larson -- sorry about that. 9 sheriff; correct? 9 Sergeant Larson was in for a good chunk of time, 10 A I have responded to press inquiries, yes. 10 was she not? 11 And do you stand by the statements you have made? 11 A No. 12 A Yes. 12 Over a year? 13 Do you recall directing Frances Carlson to take certain 13 MR. WINTERBAUER: Yeah. Go ahead. 14 actions into in her investigation into Ms. and 14 Sorry about that. 15 Mr. Caballero? 15 THE WITNESS: [don't know how long there but I wouldn't characterize as a good 17 If Sergeant Carlson has that action or those actions 17 chunk of time. 13 documented in her follow-up report, would you have any 18 (By Ms. Kays) Okay. In any event, do you recall -- do 19 reason to quarrei with her? 19 you recall teliing or saying of IIU that they were 20 A it depends on what she said i did or told her. 20 your rat squad or goon squad? 21 Do you think that Sergeant Carlson would purposeiy 21 A No. That is terms i'd never use, did not use and don't 22 document an untruth in her investigatory summary? 22 use. 23 A No. 23 And calling IIU a rat squad would mean that would be 24 You had a conversation with Sergeant Burns once he was 24 disparaging of the work that they do; correct? 25 placed initially on administrative leave, did you not? 25 A Yes. Page 179 Page 181 46 (Pages 178 to 181) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers a Anderson court Seattle/Tacoma, Washington 1 And calling a goon squad would be some suggestion 1 period she was being investigated and ordering her to 2 that Ihey'ie canying out some untoward purpose, oorreotv 2 respond to an interview with the 3 A Yen. a A No. 4 And the some with rat squadv it vmuid mean the same A a Vuu don't lecall getung a call tiom the FBI and 5 thing, ngm? 5 saying -- to Sergeant Neil via email. you 6 A Essentially, yeah. are iequired to submit to this Investigate. .. this 7 Do you knowarr named David Lee Titus? 7 interview/2 5 MR. WINTERBAUER. I'm sally. What was I A no, Idon'tremomoertliote I am not saying it didn't 9 the last name? 9 hangen, hurl cenainiydon't to MS. KAYS. Trtus. a iithere is an email to that elteot. you vwauldn't dispute ii MR, WINYEREAUER. Titus ii in 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. i know or him A It It's from me. i wouldn't dnpuie' 1: Ihinki have met hvn. t: Do you know why the FBI was invesugatrng Sergeant New '4 (By Ms KEYS) And who is this Irldivltilal'7 A No. 15 A Ittiink Ite wan a mend 01--, in am 15 a Do you rememoer chad Devore working with the FBI to is thinking the right person. ts investigate Sergeant Item And howiong ago would you have met him? 17 A Regarding the allegations Irom Steven Wright2003. Sawhim again in 2015. ll don't -- didn't know the FBI was involved in that. 91.. 0 And what can you tell me about Mr. Titus7 eonvieoed sex ofiender. 2D A i know then wax an allegation made against -- against at And where did you see him in 20157 21 sergeant New by Steven Wright. I don't know riwio did 22 A Anhemmgender parade up on Capitol Hill. 22 that Investigation. I thought it was DEA. I didn't 13 Do you know what level sex oifender he is? 11 think ilwas FBI so maybe that's where I am ooriluud. 2' A I don't. at And it Mayor Ledioro teatihed that therewas a enminai 15 0 Level :5 aspect to the allegation that FBI 7 the FBI was Page 132 Page 184 A I don't know. i investigfling, your testimony is you are not aware ot in 2 (Exhibit No, 7 marked 2 A I know ihm Wu . eriminei aspect I know there we: an i investigation. What I arri saying is. I don't, didn't A a (By Ms Kaye) Looking at the King County Sheriffs 4 know. oorrt know til-l the FBI wax doing that 5 Diane sex otlonitorweoeite. it says Level tor 5 investigation. ithough we: BEA, hut iI eotihi oethe 6 Mr Titus7 3 FBI. And was either one omiein, she would havean 7 A It does. 7 obligation to with thorn. And does that indivtduai depicted on the right-hand side criminal tnvestigetiohi a look like the individual you were speaking mm 5 A she would beusirs would have an obligation to so am in A Ves. eithertoinethe fifth Amendment or taiktothern,yes it at How much does Mr. Barnhger make a year: at And. in tact. are you aware that she speak with them? i2 A Von know, Idon't know <2 A he. i: He Ies|ified, I believe. a range or Iwant to say it was a Do you know wiry chad Bevore would have been present when 120 to 140, something in there? it the FBI saugm io interview Sergeant Nefl'? <5 A Could be. i5 A No. ts okay And i could be a little oil a it oouid be In the <5 a Do you know who authorized the eriminei irruestigeiion t7 higher end ot that range And what does a deputy make iv into Sergeant New in when they iirst get out ot the academy: <5 A Ito. iv A Don'tlinow. Certainly not Inlhveeflgumsu or six 0 Would you agioetheirithe FBI is inveeirgatrng onset in figures. I mean. Five figures somewhere 7" your department members, that you would think that ma| Ii was Sergeant Neil's -- the investigation into Sergeant 2* knowledge would be held by you that they were a 22 Neil. was that into the SET unit pradlces, was that 13 sentto OLE07 1' It [don't know. 15 Do you recall contacting Sergeant Nell during the time Page 183 2: at as investigating aorneonei A yes. a Do you know why wt: wan-t told that the Pei was investigating criminally Sergeant Nair: Page 135 47 (Pages 182 to 185) Shirl" John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington A I never said i wasn't told. - Who told you? A i don't know who told me. Okay. Well, was ita mystery person, or, I mean. what's -- what?s the identity of the person who told you? A I have already testi?ed that I thought DEA was doing that investigation. I was certainly well aware of the investigation. I didn't I don't remember knowing that the FBI was involved. 10 Do you think that this all leads to the appearance of 11 retaliation against Sergeant Neff because she keeps on 12 being investigated by you? 13 A Well, to my knowledge, she has only been investigated 14 once by the sheriff's office. As far as the allegations 15 that were made against her by Steven Wright, those are 16 very, very serious allegations and the Feds did that 17 investigation, not the sheriff's office. They don't need 13 my permission to do an investigation. 19 I had asked you about Tiffany Atwood's backgrounding memo 2? that she wrote. 21 A About Barringer? 22 Yeah. 23 A That one? Okay. 24 Who gave that to you? 25 A Stan Seo. Page 186 in the day. I can?t recall if you said that you you recall being informed at the time this investigation was under way into Sergeant Neff from some source that these were serious criminal allegations; correct? A Yes. i was aware of what the allegations were. i don't remember who told me that, but certainly was aware that there was an investigation going on and I thought it was being conducted by the you're saying it was conducted by the FBI. Uh-huh. A And that I ordered Sergeant Neff to cooperate, to go to an interview. So i am not disputing that. Uh-huh. A If that's what it says. If you have that email, then clearly that?s what it was. But your understanding at that time was, Sergeant Neff was the subject of the investigation? A Yes. And this was not a situation where was informed that this investigation was going on, were they? A Oh, llU knew about it, yes. They knew about the criminal investigation? A Yes. And they knew that it was being conducted by a federal party, if you will? Page 188 1 Okay. Once you received it, did you give it to anybody 2 else? 3 A i don't think so. 4 MS. KAYS: Why don't we take ten 5 minutes so i can just see if I have any additional 5 questions. 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off 3 the record. The time is 3:14 pm. 9 (Recess from 3:14 pm. to 10 3:24 pm.) 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the 12 record. The time is 3:24 pm. 13 (By Ms. Keys) Picking up where we left off. the -- you 14 said that there were allegations of believe you said 15 serious criminal misconduct involving Sergeant Neff? 15 A Yes. 17 And what are those allegations or were those allegations? 13 A Stealing drug evidence, i think. There may be others. 19 That's the one that sticks in my mind. That's the one I 20 was referring to. 21 And as you sit here today, there is no there is no 22 evidence -- you have learned there is no -- absolutely no 23 evidence to support that; correct? 24 A Absolutely. Correct. Yes. 25 You said though that you -- and I apologize. Just late Page 187 25 A Yes. And during that time period, it would have been Captain Nesel; correct? A Yeah. i think so, uh-huh. And llU knew about it because they would have been conducting or having the opportunity to run a parallel track. or they just get informed? A No. With a federal investigation, there would not be a parallel tract. There would only be a parallel tract it was my understanding how we do it with -- if the sheriff's office was doing the criminat investigation. But I don't think we would be doing a parallel tract with the Feds. But i A That would surprise me. But IIU would have been informed of the fact that the Feds were conducting an investigation in which Sergeant Neff was the subject? A I would think so, yes. I have no reason to think otherwise. MS. KAYS: Oops. Sorry. (Exhibit No. 8 marked for identification.) MS. KAYS: Is it 7? 8? (By Ms. Kays) Handed you what's been marked for Page 189 48 (Pages 186 to 189) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court SeattleITacoma. Washington identification as Exhibit 8. and there is an email from yourself to Sergeant Neff. CC'ing an FBI employee as well as Ms. Shelledy and Ms. Bennett. A Okay. Do you have any reason to believe this isn't an email you sent Sergeant Neff? A No. I am sure it is. MS. KAYS: i don't have any additional questions. MR. WINTERBAUER: have no question. and we'll reserve signature. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record at 3:27 pm. This and this concludes the deposition for today. Thank you. (Signature reserved.) (Deposition concluded at 3:27 pm.) Page 190 10 11 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON Michelle R. Giangualano, CCR. as a certi?ed court reporter County of Pierce in the State of Washington. do hereby certify. That the foregoing deposition of SHERIFF JOHN W. URQUHART was taken before me and completed on October 3. 2016. and thereafter was transcribed under my direction; that the deposition is a full. We and complete transcript of the testimony of said witness. including all questions. answers, objections. motions and exceptions; That the witness, before examination. was by me duly swom to testify the truth, the whole truth. and nothing but the truth. and that the witness reserved the right of signature; That am not a relative. employee, attorney or counsel of any party to this action or relative or employee of any such attorney or counsel and that am not ?nancially interested in the said action or the outcome thereof; That I am herewith securely sealing the said deposition and delivering the same to Attomey Julie A. Kays. iN WITNESS WHEREOF. have hereunto set my signature on the 5th day of October. 2016. Michelle R. Giangu Iano. CCR Certi?ed Court Reporter No. 3331 (Certi?cation expires 05f23l17.) 49 (Pages 190 to 191) Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3. 2016