SPOKANE POLICE DEPARTMENT Internal Affairs Exemption Log Number Witness Exemptions #1a Material Withheld Brief Explanation of Why Material Withheld Legal / Statutory Basis Name / Identity of witness who fears for his/her safety and wishes his/her identity not be disclosed A witness has requested the protection of his or her identity and disclosure would endanger any person's life, physical safety, or property. A witness has requested the protection of his or her identity and disclosure would endanger any person's life, physical safety, or property. A witness has requested the protection of his or her identity and disclosure would endanger any person's life, physical safety, or property. RCW 42.56.240(2) (Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims) A witness has requested the protection of his or her identity and disclosure would endanger any person's life, physical safety, or property. A witness has requested the protection of his or her identity and disclosure would endanger any person's life, physical safety, or property. RCW 42.56.240(2) (Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims) Redacted to protect the personal information of a juvenile in the court system. May not be released to the public except by court order. RCW 13.50.050 (Juvenile Courts and Juvenile Offenders) and RCW 13.50.100 (4) (a) and (b) (Keeping and Release of Records by Juvenile Justice or Care Agencies). Deer v. DSHS, 122 Wn.App. 84, 94 (2004) #1b Date of birth of witness who fears for his/her safety and wishes his/her identity not be disclosed #1c Personal home, work or cell phone number of witness who fears for his/her safety and wishes his/her identity not be disclosed Residential address of witness who fears for his/her safety and wishes his/her identity not be disclosed E-mail address of witness who fears for his/her safety and wishes his/her identity not be disclosed #1d #1e Juvenile Information #2a Names of Juveniles who are in the Juvenile court system RCW 42.56.240(2) (Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims) RCW 42.56.240(2) (Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims) RCW 42.56.240(2) (Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims) #2b Records relating to commission of Juvenile offenses. Redacted to protect the personal information of a juvenile in the court system. May not be released to the public except by court order. #2c Child Victim of Sexual Assault #2d Child victims or child witnesses This redaction protects information revealing the identity (name, address, location, or photograph) of child victims of sexual assault who are under age eighteen. Information re a child witness / victim is protected to assure the rights under law: to not have name, address, nor photograph disclosed by any law enforcement agency w/o permission of the child or parents/guardians. ACCESS Database Info #3a Information from WACIC/NCIC (ACCESS): Criminal history information WACIC/NCIC/III - information from ACCESS restricted to law enforcement use pursuant to federal law. May not be disseminated except to criminal justice agencies; audited by the FBI and the WSP. #3b Information from WACIC/NCIC (ACCESS): License Plate Information WACIC/NCIC/III - information from ACCESS restricted to law enforcement use pursuant to federal law. May not be disseminated except to criminal justice agencies; audited by the FBI and the WSP. #3c Information from WACIC/NCIC (ACCESS): Vehicle Registered owner information WACIC/NCIC/III - information from ACCESS restricted to law enforcement use pursuant to federal law. May not be disseminated except to criminal justice agencies; audited by the FBI and the WSP. #3d Information from WACIC/NCIC (ACCESS): Wanted persons information WACIC/NCIC/III - information from ACCESS restricted to law enforcement use pursuant to federal law. May not be disseminated except to criminal justice agencies; audited by the FBI and the WSP. #3e Information from WACIC/NCIC (ACCESS): WACIC/NCIC/III - information from ACCESS restricted to law RCW 13.50.050 (Juvenile Courts and Juvenile Offenders) and RCW 13.50.100 (4) (a) and (b) (Keeping and Release of Records by Juvenile Justice or Care Agencies). Deer v. DSHS, 122 Wn.App. 84, 94 (2004) RCW 42.56.240(5) (Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims) RCW 42.56.240(5) (Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims) 28 USC § 534 For criminal justice purposes only. 28 CFR 20.38 Access to FBI systems subject to cancellation for failure to comply with use provisions of part C. 28 USC § 534 For criminal justice purposes only. 28 CFR 20.38 Access to FBI systems subject to cancellation for failure to comply with use provisions of part C. 28 USC § 534 For criminal justice purposes only. 28 CFR 20.38 Access to FBI systems subject to cancellation for failure to comply with use provisions of part C. 28 USC § 534 For criminal justice purposes only. 28 CFR 20.38 Access to FBI systems subject to cancellation for failure to comply with use provisions of part C. 28 USC § 534 For criminal justice purposes only. Officer safety information enforcement use pursuant to federal law. May not be disseminated except to criminal justice agencies; audited by the FBI and the WSP. #3f Information from WACIC/NCIC (ACCESS): Gun information WACIC/NCIC/III - information from ACCESS restricted to law enforcement use pursuant to federal law. May not be disseminated except to criminal justice agencies; audited by the FBI and the WSP. #3g Information from WACIC/NCIC (ACCESS): DOL Information WACIC/NCIC/III - information from ACCESS restricted to law enforcement use pursuant to federal law. May not be disseminated except to criminal justice agencies; audited by the FBI and the WSP. #3h Information from WACIC/NCIC (ACCESS): Stolen Vehicle Information WACIC/NCIC/III - information from ACCESS restricted to law enforcement use pursuant to federal law. May not be disseminated except to criminal justice agencies; audited by the FBI and the WSP. #3i Information from WACIC/NCIC (ACCESS): Missing Persons Information WACIC/NCIC/III - information from ACCESS restricted to law enforcement use pursuant to federal law. May not be disseminated except to criminal justice agencies; audited by the FBI and the WSP. #3j Information from WACIC/NCIC (ACCESS): Runaways or endangered persons WACIC/NCIC/III - information from ACCESS restricted to law enforcement use pursuant to federal law. May not be disseminated except to criminal justice agencies; audited by the FBI and the WSP. #3k WACIC/NCIC (ACCESS): DOC Information WACIC/NCIC/III - information from ACCESS restricted to law enforcement use pursuant to federal law. May not be disseminated except to criminal justice agencies; audited by the FBI and the WSP. Social Security Number This information constitutes personal identifying information unique to the holder and which, if obtained by the Personal Identifiers and Financial Info #4a 28 CFR 20.38 Access to FBI systems subject to cancellation for failure to comply with use provisions of part C. 28 USC § 534 For criminal justice purposes only. 28 CFR 20.38 Access to FBI systems subject to cancellation for failure to comply with use provisions of part C. 28 USC § 534 For criminal justice purposes only. 28 CFR 20.38 Access to FBI systems subject to cancellation for failure to comply with use provisions of part C. 28 USC § 534 For criminal justice purposes only. 28 CFR 20.38 Access to FBI systems subject to cancellation for failure to comply with use provisions of part C. 28 USC § 534 For criminal justice purposes only. 28 CFR 20.38 Access to FBI systems subject to cancellation for failure to comply with use provisions of part C. 28 USC § 534 For criminal justice purposes only. 28 CFR 20.38 Access to FBI systems subject to cancellation for failure to comply with use provisions of part C. 28 USC § 534 For criminal justice purposes only. 28 CFR 20.38 Access to FBI systems subject to cancellation for failure to comply with use provisions of part C. RCW 42.56.050 (Invasion of privacy), RCW 42.56.230 (Personal information), public could be abused or lead to identity theft. #4b Driver’s License or Identicard This information constitutes personal identifying information unique to the holder and which, if obtained by the public could be abused or lead to identity theft. #4c Credit/Debit Card Numbers #4d Electronic Check/Check Numbers #4e Card Expiration Dates #4f Bank Account Number #4g Financial Institution Account Number Could be subject to identity theft. Disclosure has no legitimate public value and violates the individual’s right to privacy. Could be subject to identity theft. Disclosure has no legitimate public value and violates the individual’s right to privacy. Could be subject to identity theft. Disclosure has no legitimate public value and violates the individual’s right to privacy. Could be subject to identity theft. Disclosure has no legitimate public value and violates the individual’s right to privacy. Could be subject to identity theft. Disclosure has no legitimate public value and violates the individual’s right to privacy. Employees Files #5a #5b Photos of Spokane Police Department or other criminal justice employees Birthdates of criminal justice employees Photographs in the personnel files of employees and workers of criminal justice agencies as defined in RCW 10.97.030 are protected from disclosure for their safety and privacy. Birthdates in the personnel files of employees and workers of criminal justice agencies as defined in RCW 10.97.030 are protected from 42.56.250(3)(8) (Employment and licensing), 42.56.210(1) (Certain personal and other records exempt), 42 USC § 405(c)(2)(viii)(I) (Limits on Use and Disclosure of Social Security Numbers) 18 USC § 2721 (Prohibition On Release And Use Of Certain Personal Information From State Motor Vehicle Records); RCW 42.56.050 (Invasion of privacy), RCW 42.56.230 (Personal information), 42.56.250 (Employment and licensing), 42.56.210(1) (Certain personal and other records exempt) RCW 42.56.230(5) (Personal Information), RCW 42.56.060 (Invasion of privacy) RCW 42.56.230(5) (Personal Information), RCW 42.56.060 (Invasion of privacy) RCW 42.56.230(5) (Personal Information), RCW 42.56.060 (Invasion of privacy) RCW 42.56.230(5) (Personal Information), RCW 42.56.060 (Invasion of privacy) RCW 42.56.230(5) (Personal Information), RCW 42.56.060 (Invasion of privacy) RCW 42.56.250(8) (Employment and licensing) RCW 42.56.250(8) (Employment and licensing) #5c Criminal History #6a Officer Safety or Intelligence #7a Personal Information in employee files disclosure for their safety and privacy. Personal information in files maintained for employees, appointees, or elected officials of any public agency is protected to the extent that disclosure would violate their right to privacy. RCW 42.56.230(3) (Personal information), RCW 42.56.250(3) (Employment and licensing) Criminal history not from ACCESS- Non-Conviction Data Criminal history which has not led to a conviction or other adverse disposition is protected by state law and only released to Criminal Justice Agencies for law enforcement purposes. RCW 10.97 (Criminal Procedure) Intelligence, sensitive security, or tactical information Record includes sensitive intelligence, security or tactical information the non-disclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement. Contains information which could reveal the identity of an undercover officer, who undertakes ongoing dangerous / confidential undertakings to effect law enforcement purposes. Protected to preserve the life and personal safety of officer and family. Any record pertaining to a vehicle license plate, driver's license, or identicard revealing the identity of an individual performing undercover law enforcement, confidential public health work, public assistance fraud, or child support investigative activity. Contains confidential data used for law enforcement purposes. Disclosure has no legitimate value to the public and can endanger an individual’s safety. Contains specific intelligence information the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any person's right to privacy. Contains identifying information which could reveal the identity of a confidential informant. Considered intelligence information, used in a confidential manner for law enforcement purposes, protected to preserve the life and personal safety RCW 42.56.240(1) (Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims) #7b Undercover Officer identification #7c ID Records revealing covert law enforcement activity #7d Law Enforcement Information Sheet #7e Confidential Informant information RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement. RCW 42.56.230(7)(c) (Personal Information) RCW 42.56.240(1) (Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims) RCW 42.56.240(1) (Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims). Ashley v. Public Disclosure Comm’n, 16 Wn.App. 830, 836 (1977). of the informant and family. Specific intelligence information compiled by law enforcement, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any person's right to privacy. Photos #8a Photos showing a deceased person Disclosure would violate a person’s right to privacy, and be highly offensive to a reasonable person. #8b Photos showing highly sensitive material Disclosure would violate a person’s right to privacy, and be highly offensive to a reasonable person. #8c Photo Montages Disclosure would violate a person’s right to privacy, and be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Protected by Law #9 Medical Records Medical records consist of confidential and privileged information highly personal and restricted. The disclosure of medical records is regulated by state and federal law and not public information. Right to Privacy: Disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. #10a Jail records #10b Jail booking photos This redaction contains the records of a person confined in jail and is being protected pursuant to state law, as this information is only available to criminal justice agencies as defined in RCW 43.43.705. This redaction contains the records of a person confined in jail and is being protected pursuant to state law, as RCW 42.56.050 (Invasion of privacy) RCW 42.56.230 (Personal information), 42.56.250 (Employment and licensing), 42.56.210(1) (Certain personal and other records exempt) RCW 42.56.050 (Invasion of privacy) RCW 42.56.230 (Personal information), 42.56.250 (Employment and licensing), 42.56.210(1) (Certain personal and other records exempt) RCW 42.56.050 (Invasion of privacy) RCW 42.56.230 (Personal information), 42.56.250 (Employment and licensing), 42.56.210(1) (Certain personal and other records exempt) RCW 42.56.360 (Health care), 70.02.005 (Findings) and HIPPA (45 CFR 164.502). RCW 42.56.050 (Invasion of privacy) RCW 42.56.230 (Personal information), 42.56.250 (Employment and licensing), 42.56.210(1) (Certain personal and other records exempt) RCW 70.48.100 (Jail register) RCW 70.48.100 (Jail register) #11 Autopsies, postmortems #12 Confidential Attorney Client Communications #13a Name/Identity of accused police officers #13b Date of birth of accused police officers/employee. #13c Personal work, home, or cell phone number of accused police officers/employee. #13d Residential address of accused police officers/employee. #13e E-mail address of accused police officers/employee. #14 Information concerning Mental Health Services this information is only available to criminal justice agencies as defined in RCW 43.43.705. Reports and records of autopsies or postmortems are confidential and exempt from public disclosure, but certain officials with authority to examine and obtain copies of such reports may access. This redaction protects confidential communications between an attorney and his/her client. This redaction protects the identities of officers/employee accused of sexual misconduct in Internal Affairs Investigations and Inquiries, if the findings are not Sustained. Police officers/employees have a right to privacy in their identities in connection with unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct. This redaction protects the identities of accused officers/employees in Internal Affairs Investigations and Inquiries, if the findings are not Sustained. This redaction protects the identities of accused officers/employee in Internal Affairs Investigations and Inquiries, if the findings are not Sustained. This redaction protects the identities of accused officers/employee in Internal Affairs Investigations and Inquiries, if the findings are not Sustained. This redaction protects the identities of accused officers/employee in Internal Affairs Investigations and Inquiries, if the findings are not Sustained. This redaction contains confidential information concerning services to either voluntary or involuntary recipients of mental health services. Such information, if disclosed, would invade an individual’s privacy and possibly cause unintended consequences for that individual. RCW 68.50.105 (Autopsies, postmortems – Reports and records confidential) RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) (Privileged communications) Hangartner v. Seattle, 151 Wn.2d 439 (2004). Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wash.2d 398 (2011). Bellevue John Does, 164 Wash 2d at 212, 189 P.3d 139. Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wash.2d 398 (2011) Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wash.2d 398 (2011) Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wash.2d 398 (2011) Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wash.2d 398 (2011) RCW 71.05.390 (Confidential information and records) Incident Summary Page 1 of 4 Spokane Police Department S.P.D. Internal Complaint Report Incident Entered By: Lieutenant Steven Braun Assigned Investigator: Chief Craig Meidl Incident Details Date Received Date of Occurrence Time of Occurrence 2/25/2016 10/26/2015 09:00 Record ID # Incident No IA No 9226 15-376676 C16-019 Date/Time Entered 2/25/2016 08:08 Incident Summary Sergeant J. Gately was charged with rendering criminal assistance and obstructing as part of the SCSO's investigation of sexual assault against Sergeant G. Ennis. The admin investigation into the allegations against Sergeant Ennis is C15-091. The allegation in this case was found to be sustained per Chief Meidl 02/10/17. Incident Location • 1100 Mallon AV, Direction: W, Spokane, WA 99260 - : Northwest Reporting Officers Lieutenant Steven Braun - Payroll Number: 11952 Involved Officers Sergeant John Gately - Payroll Number: 11113 Allegations linked to this officer • Ethical Standard Sustained 2/10/2017 Attachments Date Attached 2/25/2016 Attachment Description Attachment Type Gately Admin Leave form pdf 2/25/2016 Staben additional #2 doc 2/25/2016 Lundgren additional #1 doc 2/25/2016 Smith interview wLundgren transcription doc https://cosspdblueteam/blueteam/Unrestricted/IncidentReport.aspx?x=EAcaLe2LX0YOPD9... 3/2/2017 Incident Summary Page 2 of 4 2/25/2016 Smith interview with Armstrong transcription 2/25/2016 Policy Manual Standard 24 doc pdf 3/9/2016 Armstrong Additional 022416 pdf 4/13/2016 d_staben csv 4/20/2016 AC Smith Rights-Responsibilities Form pdf 4/20/2016 12-28-15 memo from AC Smith pdf 5/5/2016 J Gately RTW Paid Admin Leave 04132016 pdf 5/24/2016 Gately Declination letter pdf 7/26/2016 Gately Interview Transcript doc 8/5/2016 C16-019 Interview-Gately MP3 8/5/2016 C16-019 Interview-Gately 2 MP3 8/5/2016 040116 State v. Gately Pretrial PDF 8/5/2016 State v. Gately Transcript Vol. I PDF 8/5/2016 State v. Gately Transcript Vol. II PDF 8/5/2016 8/5/2016 State v. Gately Transcript Vol. III Rape Affidavit PDF pdf 8/5/2016 Armstrong Additional 011416 pdf 8/5/2016 Armstrong Additional 011816 Sgt Hartman Email pdf 8/5/2016 Armstrong Additional 012116 Ennis training record pdf 8/5/2016 Armstrong Additional 120315 Strosahl Kingpin Report pdf 8/5/2016 Armstrong Additional 120315 Griffin-Carpenter-Staben Timeline pdf 8/5/2016 Armstrong Additional 120815 Griffin-Carpenter Interviews pdf 8/5/2016 Armstrong Additional 121515 Cell Records for Gately Report pdf 8/5/2016 Armstrong Additiona 121715 TARU Rip of Gately Phone pdf 8/5/2016 Forensic Report pdf 8/5/2016 Property Report pdf 8/5/2016 Staben Deposition pdf 8/5/2016 Motion to Dismiss pdf 8/5/2016 Order Dismissing Charges pdf 8/5/2016 Media Release pdf 8/5/2016 IA Response Request-Gately doc 8/5/2016 IA Response Request Gately-Re Interview doc 8/5/2016 Guild Officer Notes pdf 8/5/2016 8/5/2016 Email string Carr IA Additional pdf doc 8/5/2016 Administrative Rights-Gately pdf 8/5/2016 Administrative Rights-Gately 2 pdf 8/5/2016 Armstrong Additional 020416 pdf 8/5/2016 Gately Interview Transcript 2 doc 8/5/2016 15-376676 Ennis and Gately pdf 10/3/2016 Carr IA Additional 2 doc 12/6/2016 ARP review document pdf 12/30/2016 Loudermill Hearing Notice pdf 3/2/2017 Finding Letter pdf Chain of Command History Sent Dt 2/25/2016 From Internal Affairs To Internal Affairs CC Approved (none) Sender's Instructions: This is the admin investigation into allegation against Sgt J. Gately. It is being seperated from the investigation into allegations against Sgt Ennis. Recipient's Comments/Response: [Forward to IAPro by Sergeant Michael Carr] 3/28/2016 Sergeant Michael Carr Sergeant Michael Carr (none) Sender's Instructions: New Complaint https://cosspdblueteam/blueteam/Unrestricted/IncidentReport.aspx?x=EAcaLe2LX0YOPD9... 3/2/2017 Incident Summary Page 3 of 4 Recipient's Comments/Response: Completion notes: Lt. Staben, I believe this file is ready for your review. Please let me know if there is anything else you would like me to do. 8/5/2016 Sergeant Michael Carr Lieutenant David Staben (none) Sender's Instructions: Please review this for completeness and advise if you would like anything else done. Recipient's Comments/Response: [Forwarded by Lieutenant David Staben] 8/8/2016 Lieutenant David Staben Asst Chief Justin Lundgren (none) Sender's Instructions: Major, I am not reviewing for completeness and passing to you. Recipient's Comments/Response: Please send to ARP. 8/9/2016 Asst Chief Justin Lundgren Sergeant Michael Carr (none) Sender's Instructions: Please send to ARP. Justin Recipient's Comments/Response: [Forwarded by Sergeant Michael Carr] 8/10/2016 Sergeant Michael Carr Captain Bradley Arleth Sergeant Michael Carr, Lieutenant David Staben, Sergeant Daniel Waters Sender's Instructions: Captain Arleth, your ARP POD has been designated to review the John Gately case. Recipient's Comments/Response: Incident routing was closed out by IAPro user Sergeant Daniel Waters and the incident was re-routed to Lieutenant Steven J Wohl [512] 12/6/2016 Sergeant Daniel Waters Lieutenant Steven Wohl (none) Sender's Instructions: To add ARP Findings Recipient's Comments/Response: Please see attached ARP document and Walker Addendum. 12/6/2016 Internal Affairs Internal Affairs (none) Sender's Instructions: Please see attached ARP document and Walker Addendum. Recipient's Comments/Response: For your review. ARP attached 12/6/2016 Sergeant Michael Carr Chief Craig Meidl Asst Chief Justin Lundgren Sender's Instructions: The Gatley investigation is completed and ARP finding is attached. Recipient's Comments/Response: Incident routing was closed out by IAPro user Sergeant Carr Michael and the incident was re-routed to Chief Craig N Meidl [388] 1/3/2017 Sergeant Michael Carr Chief Craig Meidl (none) Sender's Instructions: Re-routing to you so I can CC the majors and Asst. Chief Recipient's Comments/Response: 1/3/2017 Sergeant Michael Carr Chief Craig Meidl Major Kevin King, Major Eric Olsen, Asst Chief Justin Lundgren Sender's Instructions: routing error Recipient's Comments/Response: Finding is sustained. Finding notice will be forwarded to IA after signed by all relevant parties. 1/3/2017 Sergeant Michael Carr Chief Craig Meidl Major Kevin King, Major Eric Olsen, Asst Chief Justin Lundgren Sender's Instructions: routing error Recipient's Comments/Response: Completion notes: Finding letter complete. Will forward to IA after signed by all relevant parties. Assigned Investigator Signature Line https://cosspdblueteam/blueteam/Unrestricted/IncidentReport.aspx?x=EAcaLe2LX0YOPD9... 3/2/2017 Incident Summary Page 4 of 4 ______________________________________________________ Chief Craig Meidl Chain of Command Signature Lines ______________________________________________________ Sergeant Michael Carr ______________________________________________________ Lieutenant David Staben ______________________________________________________ Asst Chief Justin Lundgren ______________________________________________________ Captain Bradley Arleth ______________________________________________________ Lieutenant Steven Wohl ______________________________________________________ Chief Craig Meidl https://cosspdblueteam/blueteam/Unrestricted/IncidentReport.aspx?x=EAcaLe2LX0YOPD9... 3/2/2017 SPOKANE POLICE DIVISION CHIEF OF POLICE CRAIG N. MEIDL Internal Affairs Investigation Case Finding Notice To: Sgt. John Gater #278 Date: February 10, 2017 From: Craig Meidl, Chief of Police I.A. C16-019 Theresa Sanders, City Administrator An internal investigation has been conducted concerning certain allegations of misconduct. These allegations stem from an incident that occurred on: Date/Time: October 26, 2015 Location: Public Safety Building Complainant: Spokane Police Department Case/Citation Complaint: Standard 9.5: Members of the Spokane Police Department shall treat as con?dential all matters relating to investigations, internal affairs, and personnel. Sgt. Gately: On October 25, 2015 you became aware of con?dential information related to a criminal investigation of rape where Sgt. Gordon Ennis was the suspect. The Spokane County Sheriff?s Of?ce (SCSO) was the lead agency in the criminal investigation. The reason you were contacted was to elicit Peer Assistance Team (PAT) services for the victim, who is also a member of the Spokane Police Department. There was no mention or request for you to contact anyone other than the victim. Prior to SCSO contacting Sgt. Ennis, you called him and divulged information that you reasonably should have known was told to you in con?dence. As a result criminal charges were ?led against you by the Spokane County Sheriff?s Of?ce for interfering in a criminal rape investigation involving two members of the Spokane Police Department. A jury trial returned with a hung jury; four jurors voted for conviction and eight voted for acquittal. During Selby Smith?s (former Assistant Chief) interview with Internal Affairs, SCSO, as well as sworn testimony in court, Smith unequivocally stated his only purpose in contacting you was in your role as a PAT member, with the intent that you would coordinate peer support services for the victim of?cer. However you stated that Smith?s last question to you regarding ?anything else? he should be doing for the department was interpreted by you as him asking you in your Guild President role. Based on his statements and testimony, as well as your own statements and testimony, the conversation only involved PAT and this was not a reasonable interpretation of his question to you. Your defense attorney stated in his opening statement that Smith also told you SCSO would be conducting the investigation. In addition, SPOKANE Public Safety Building - 1100 W. Mallon Avenue - Spokane, Washington 99260-0001 1 i: i after speaking with Smith and the accused suspect, you received a return phone call from Sgt. McNab (who was with the victim of?cer) after you had initially called him. During that phone call, Sgt. McNab indicated that you wanted to con?rm details about what had occurred. As you knew this was a criminal investigation, and you stated that you assumed your Guild role after getting off the phone with Smith, it was grossly inappropriate for you to ask follow-up questions about an incident you knew was under criminal investigation. The Guild does not have a role to play in criminal investigations. Your attorney also acknowledged in his opening statements that ?the guild represents (of?cers) on various union matters. . .. But also when there?s an internal investigation going against an of?cer.? Your attorney further stated, ?That?s (criminal cases) dealt with by other people, attorneys and so on and so forth.? You knew that the administrative investigation follows the criminal investigation, therefore Guild involvement in portion of the criminal investigation is inappropriate. Certainly a follow-up conversation with McNab for more details about the incident by you was inappropriate. On Monday October 26, 2015, you had a conversation with Ennis that lasted over six minutes. You stated during your Internal Affairs interview and courtroom testimony that you never told Ennis that SCSO was going to execute a search warrant on his person. However you also testi?ed that you told Ennis SCSO was going to come to his house. When Ennis asked why, you replied, ?Probably for your You knew Ennis had been a corporal, you knew Ennis was familiar with how DNA was gathered and what would likely be needed, and your statement about any part of the criminal investigation was inappropriate and outside your role as a Guild president. Whether you told him directly or not that SCSO had a search warrant for his DNA is irrelevant; your statement to Ennis that they ?probably? wanted his DNA was tantamount to informing him that they were going to respond to his house to execute a search warrant for his DNA. Ennis clearly knew you had signi?cant information about what was going to occur because you had already shared details with him that he did not know; it was expected then that your statement about SCSO wanting his DNA would be interpreted by him as you knowing this information as well. Further supporting that you shared con?dential information with Ennis are the multiple phone calls and text messages sent by Ennis looking for an attorney immediately after you got off the phone with him. Detective testi?ed that his investigation (phone records) showed no one contacted Ennis about the existence of a search warrant other than you. You also testi?ed that as far as you knew, you were the only one who contacted Ennis about DNA, and that Ennis was unaware of the criminal investigation until you spoke to him. You also testi?ed that information about the existence of a search warrant should not be shared ?because it could lead to destruction of evidence? and ?compromise an investigation?, and you acknowledged that the element of surprise is important to the integrity of an investigation of this type. You further testi?ed that the Guild does not get involved until an internal investigation is started. Your attorney said in his opening statement, ?And during the conversation somewhere there was a question about, well, what?s the county going to do. . .. And just, in an of?iand comment when Ennis asked Sergeant Gately, well, why?s the County coming out, Sergeant Gately says, ?Well, sexual assault investigation; they always want to get . . .. And then shortly thereafter. . .there were phone calls from an attorney representing Sergeant Ennis to the County. . .saying he?s representing Sergeant Ennis and if the County wants to get his DNA, Sergeant Ennis will be available in the attorney?s of?ce.? Your attorney said in his closing statement that, ?We probably shouldn?t have said that (disclosure of intent to seek Ennis?s DNA), and John would agree.? Your own attorney acknowledged that this was inappropriate. Furthermore, AC Smith, former PIO Ofc. Fuller, Detective and Sgt. Rosenthal all testi?ed that sharing the existence of a search warrant for DNA would be inappropriate. Sergeant Gately, it is clear to me that you revealed con?dential information to Ennis (accused of rape) that was a violation of SPD Policy Standard 9.5: Members of the Spokane Police Department shall treat as con?dential all matters relating to investigations, internal affairs, and personnel. You overstepped your role as a Guild representative when you inserted yourself into the criminal investigation by sharing this con?dential information. It is undisputed that you shared con?dential information with the accused suspect and subsequently SCSO was not able to obtain a portion of the DNA they had listed in the search warrant. This allegation is sustained. Your involvement in this incident has brought great embarrassment and discredit to the Spokane Police Department. This is not the type of behavior that I will tolerate from any of our employees. There are several mitigating factors that have caused me not to terminate your employment with SPD. It is important to note that these factors are the only reason your employment with SPD will not be terminated. I have found through the investigation that the SPD administration bears some culpability. Though by no means excusing the behavior, the administration should not have shared any information at the outset with you or the Guild due to your position as the Guild president. However you still had an obligation to limit your role and involvement to that appropriate for a union representative. You should not have discussed or mentioned in any fashion information you learned related to the criminal investigation with the person accused of a very serious crime; this was unarguably outside your role as a PAT member or Guild president. In addition to the con?dential information the police administration should not have shared with you, you should not have been allowed to participate in conversations surrounding the press release. This situation was complicated by the dual roles you ?lled (PAT member and Guild president), but this does not by any means excuse the sharing of any criminal investigative information with the accused employee. In addition to a certain amount of administration culpability, you have 30 years of law enforcement experience with no serious policy violations. I have taken this into consideration as well in my determination that your employment will not be terminated. Findings: Sustained Sanction: Four work weeks of administrative leave with no pay. You will be allowed to take one week per month until all four weeks are served to maintain continuity of your work requirements that will bene?t the department. In addition to the above, you are immediately removed from any role related to the Peer Assistance Team. Appeals: You have the right of appeal as speci?ed in Civil Service Rule XI, Section 5, as follows: APPEALS: Any employee in the classi?ed service who has been suspended, reduced in rank or discharged as provided in Rule may appeal such action to the Commission. All appeals must be in writing and ?led with the Secretary within 10 working days from date of ?ling of such order with the Commission or from date of service of such order on the employee, whichever is later. The Secretary shall provide a copy to the Human Resources Director of any appeal so ?led. Failure to ?le within the prescribed time shall be considered as acceptance of the action and the action shall be deemed complete. In addition to any rights you may have under the City of Spokane Civil Service System, your collective bargaining agreement also grants you the right to grieve the discipline. Please consult your union representative for assistance. Additionally, please note that should you decide to appeal your suspension, you may appeal either through the Civil Service Commission or through your Union, but not both. 0R7 2/0/17 Craig Meryl Date Chief of Police Theresa Sanders 2/30/22? City Administrator Date You are requested to provide your signature and to ?ll in the date line below acknowledging receipt of this suspension. Any refusal to sign will be noted and will not result in any change to the processing of this document and inclusion in your of?cial personnel ?le. ozzam John Gately Date Sergeant if or 547 John Grif?n Date President, Police Guild This case will be maintained in the Internal Affairs files and available for your review. Edit-are encbw?ag??l ta centric! Internal A?'girs it) review the-?le. In the event of an ?Improper Conduct" ?nding, a copy of any disciplinary report will become a part of your personnel ?le. CC: Justin Lundgren, Assistant Police Chief Pat Dalton, Legal John Grif?n, Police Guild Meghann Steinolfson, Human Resources Chris Cavanaugh, Human Resources Gita George-Hatcher, Civil Service Greg Kinyon, Human Resources Noti?cation will be provided to: Darcie Chaf?n-Leonard, Payroll Becky Davis, Human Resources SPOKANE POLICE DIVISION CHIEF OF POLICE CRAIG N. MEIDL Loudermill Hearing Notice December 27, 2016 Sergeant John Gater #278 Spokane Police Department RE: Internal Affairs Investigation #016-019 Sergeant John Gately, an internal investigation was conducted as the result of criminal charges filed against you by the Spokane County Sheriff?s department for interfering in a criminal rape investigation involving two members of the Spokane Police Department as follows: On October 25, 2015 you became aware of confidential information related to a criminal investigation of Rape where Sgt. Gordon Ennis was the suspect. The Spokane County Sheriff?s department was the lead agency in the investigation. The reason you were contacted was to elicit PAT services for the victim who is also a member of the Spokane Police Department. There was no mention of you contacting anyone other than the victim. Prior to the Spokane County Sheriff?s department contacting Sgt. Ennis you called him and divulged information that you reasonably should have known was told to you in confidence. An investigation was conducted as well as a chain of command review. Pursuant to City policy, you have the right to respond to these listed violations. I would like to afford you the opportunity to present your case to me in a Loudermill Hearing prior to making a decision regarding these allegations. I have scheduled this hearing to begin at 1400 hours on Thursday, January 26, 2017 in the Chief?s Conference room. If you do not wish to attend this hearing, please contact Angie Napolitano at 625-4063. During the hearing you may convey any reasons or provide any information you feel is relevant to this matter. You have the right to representation by your union, co-worker, or an attorney at your expense. You may bring pertinent documentation and/or witnesses. Witnesses must have permission from their supervisors prior to attending the hearing. If you need additional time to prepare your presentation or to arrange for representation, please let me know. CA6 "?t/17 [an/la Craig Meidl Date Chief of Police John Gater Loudermill Notice 2016 page . Public Safety Building - 1100 W. Mallon Avenue Spokane, Washington 99260-0001 I hereby acknowledge receipt of noti?cation: Wm 03 a/ gag?o Signature of Employee Date and Time of Receipt (NOTE: If there is a delay in conducting this hearing for any reason, that reason should be noted by the department. Once a new date, time and location have been determined, please make note of that change above.) Original: Human Resources Copy: Department Copy: Appropriate Representative John Gater Loudermill Notice 2016 Page 2 SPOKANE POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM ill) HH lull} CONFIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PANEL I.A. C16-019 Incident COMPLAINT: Allegation of 1) 340.3.5 PERFORMANCE Unauthorized access and/or, intentional release of designated con?dential information, personnel ?le materials, data, forms, or reports. Violating any felony statute or any misdemeanor statute where such violation that may materially affect the employees ability to perform of?cial duties or may be indicative of un?tness for his/her position. 2) 3403.7 SECURITY Unauthorized access and/or, intentional release of designated con?dential information, personnel ?le materials, data, forms, or reports. COMPLAINANT: Lt. S.S. Braun #647 OCCURRED: October 25th and 26th 2015 LOCATION: Via phone EMPLOYEE: Sgt. John Gately #278 On 08/31/16, 10/ 13/ 16, and 11/30/16, an Administrative Review Panel was held to discuss this case. Present were: Captain Arleth gLieutenant Walker Lieutenant Anderson ELieutenant Wohl (Author) gCaptain Singley COMPLAINT SCSO Detective Brandon alleges that Sgt. John Gately did hinder and obstruct a sexual assault investigation (IS-376676) he was assigned on 10/25/15. More speci?cally, Det. alleges that Sgt. Gately intentionally noti?ed Gordon Ennis of a pending search warrant, which led to the destruction of potential evidence. FACT PATTERN On 10-24-15, Gordon Ennis attended a small gathering at a house in Spokane County, which was hosted by a co-worker of his. A female co-worker of theirs also attended the gathering. In the early morning hours on 10-25-15, it is alleged that Gordon Ennis did digitally penetrate the intoxicated female, who later noti?ed police. Noti?cations were made to SPD command staff to include Captain Olsen, Assistant Chief Smith and Acting Chief Dobrow It was determined that the Spokane County Sheriff?s Of?ce would be lead on the investigation, as it occurred in the county, and involved a City of Spokane employee. After being noti?ed of the situation, Captain Olsen spoke with Assistant Chief Smith, and Major Crimes Sgt. Joel Fertakis. Captain Olsen realized the seriousness of the allegations, and knew the information needed to stay con?dential. He expressed that to Sgt. Fertakis, and advised him not to share the information with anyone. Captain Olsen did not speak with Sgt. John Gately regarding the manner that evening, nor did he discuss notifying Gately with AC Smith. AC Smith (ret.) made several phone calls after being noti?ed of the situation. He noti?ed Chief Dobrow Tim Schwering, Captain Dan Torok, and Sgt. John Gately. He stated that he noti?ed Dobrow and Schwering as part of the command staff, and Captain Torok as Ennis? patrol captain. Smith reached out to Sgt. Gately on his personal/guild phone as a member of the peer assistance team (PAT), hoping to provide support to the victim in the case. Sgt. Gately contacted on-call Sgt. McNab to clarify information, as well as Ofc. Kyle Heuett who is also a PAT member. Ofc. Heuett had been previously contacted by the victim in the case, as he?d been her ?eld training of?cer. Due to that trusted and professional relationship, Sgt. Gately utilized Ofc. Heuett as her peer assistance team contact. Sgt. Gately had been informed of the seriousness of the allegations against Gordon Ennis, and that the Spokane County Sheriff?s Of?ce would be leading the criminal investigation. Shortly after that information was relayed to him, Sgt. Gately did reach out to Ennis by phone, instructing him not to speak to anyone about the party he attended, unless in an ?of?cial capacity?. Ennis had not been contacted by SCSO investigators at this point. Sgt. Gately?s phone call to Ennis appeared to be the ?rst contact with anyone regarding this sexual assault allegation. On 10-26-15, realizing the seriousness of the matter, Sgt. Gately came into work on his day off to be available for the situation. He was noti?ed that SCSO detectives were working on a search warrant at approximately 8:00 am, which would be executed later in the day. Sgt. Gately was also made aware of a pending press release, and viewed what had been written up for dissemination. Knowing that the press release would be sent to the media, Sgt. Gately and P10 Fuller agreed that Gately would call Ennis and make him aware of the soon to be released of?cial statement. Sgt. Gately made a second subsequent phone call to Ennis, making him aware of the pending release, and that he would be placed on administrative leave due to the serious allegations. During this conversation, Gordon Ennis asked Sgt. Gately what the county would be looking for. Sgt. Gately replied, ?Probably you?re The information regarding the search warrant and potential DNA collection was not a part of the press release that Sgt. Gately had viewed. After Sgt. Gately?s phone call to Gordon Ennis, Ennis did retain a lawyer to represent him in the case. That attorney did reach out to the county regarding his client, and made arrangements for the execution of the warrant. Gordon Ennis met with SCSO detectives at his attomey?s of?ce on 10-26-15, approximately 36 hours after the alleged crime. SCSO executed a search warrant for potential ?eeting evidence, as well as Ennis? DNA. SCSO Det. Brandon attempted to collect ?ngernail clippings from Ennis, as there may have been potential DNA (vaginal ?uid and/or blood) transfer between the victim and suspect in the case. Det. was unable to collect Ennis? ?ngernail clippings as it appeared that Ennis had freshly cut his nails short enough, making it impossible to take a sample. The Spokane County Sheriff?s Of?ce felt that Sgt. Gater released con?dential information to Gordon Ennis on several occasions, thereby hindering their investigation. Due to the totality of the circumstances, they consulted with the prosecutor?s of?ce, and subsequently charged Sgt. Gately with several crimes. ANALYSIS Our Administrative Review Panel originally met on 08/3 1/ 16 to discuss the case. We developed a series of follow-up questions and clari?cations that needed to be addressed prior to any further work being done. That list was sent to Internal Affairs and AC Lundgren for clari?cation. The ARP received an answer to our questions on 09/22/16, at which point we set up a meeting for 10/ 1 3/ 16 to discuss them. After the subsequent meeting, we felt we lacked clear information on the conversations between Captain Olsen and AC Smith, as well as AC Smith and Chief Dobrow. We asked that Internal Affairs interview Major Olsen and retired Chief Dobrow to clarify the information and orders given the night of October 25th 2015. These interviews were both conducted on 10/25/ 16, and 10/31/ 16. Sgt. Carr completed his additional and made it available to this ARP. We believe there are several facets of this case that led to the potential release of con?dential information, criminal charges being ?led, and an internal investigation being done. The ?rst issue I will address is the initial call to Sgt. Gately from AC Smith. Should AC Smith have called Sgt. Gately on 10/25/15 for peer assistance team support for the victim in the case, thereby relaying the facts of the case to him? Although his intentions were in the right place, AC Smith should have followed the proper chain of command for PAT, and made the initial call to Lt. Tracie Meidl or Sgt. Dan Waters. AC Smith was hired by the City of Spokane in February 2014. Although he brought 26 years of federal investigative experience with him, his SPD policy/procedure knowledge, and proper chain of command noti?cations experience was minimal. Sgt. Gately should have been kept out of this criminal investigation at this point, but was inadvertently noti?ed of the details. Once this information was relayed to Sgt. Gately, he should have noti?ed his PAT chain of command, and excused himself from the investigation unless speci?cally directed by his immediate supervisor. Sgt. Gately is a veteran of?cer, with a wealth of experience and knowledge. In addition to being a member of the peer assistance team, Gately was the guild president, a TAC team leader, and a Hostage team member. With over 25 years of law enforcement experience, Sgt. Gately should have known the information given to him by AC Smith was con?dential and/or sensitive in nature. Sgt. Gately was not asked to call Gordon Ennis by anyone, nor was he asked to be the liaison for the guild with Ennis at this point on the 25th of October 2015. By calling Ennis at this point, Sgt. Gately could have made him aware of a potential investigation. On 10/26/15, Sgt. Gately came in on his day off to speci?cally be available for this situation. A decision was made that a press release would be drafted and sent to the media regarding the investigation. Chief Dobrow was out of town at this time, so AC Smith, Ofc. Fuller, and ?multiple people? from the city assisted with crafting the release. During his IA interview, AC Smith also stated that the County PIO (Gregory), and the Sheriff also had conversations with them regarding it. Once it was complete, Sgt. Gately viewed this release, and spoke with the PIO regarding noti?cation to the involved employee. In addition to the press release, Gordon Ennis was being placed on administrative leave, and would need to be contacted. AC Smith signed the command paperwork, with the understanding that Sgt. Staben and Sgt. Gately would provide the information to Ennis. Per SPD policy 1020.4.1 subsection the Chief of Police or his designee is authorized to place an employee on administrative leave. In this instance, the decision was relegated down to the PIO and/or an SPD sergeant to make that contact. Sgt. Gately volunteered to contact Ennis, advise him of the pending release, and that he was being placed on administrative leave. We feel this second call to Gordon Ennis was not inappropriate, as it was not uncommon for a guild of?cer to notify an employee of a news release or administrative leave procedure. Ennis was going to be noti?ed by someone from the Spokane Police Department, Sgt. Gately felt he was the appropriate person as the guild president. During his second call to Gordon Ennis, Sgt. Gately advised him that a press release was being sent to the media, and what the press release stated. Sgt. Gately testi?ed in his trial that Ennis asked him what the county wanted from him. Sgt. Gately said he responded with, ?Probably your Sgt. Gately admitted in his IA interview that the press release did not say anything about DNA. By answering this question from Ennis, it led the SCSO investigators to surmise that Ennis cut his nails in an attempt to destroy potential evidence. They felt Sgt. Gately obstructed their investigation by giving ?him those details. Did Sgt. Gately in fact hinder or obstruct the Sheriff?s of?ce investigation into the alleged sexual assault listing Gordon Ennis as the suspect? This question was answered during Sgt. Gately?s trial, where it ended in a hung jury (8 to acquit, 4 to convict). CONCLUSION It is apparent after reading this investigation that there were errors made by several people involved. Sgt. Gately should not have been noti?ed in any capacity during the initial noti?cation and investigative process. This occurred due to the lack of knowledge and experience in dealing with employee involved SPD investigations. Once Sgt. Gately was advised of the allegations, he should have recognized the seriousness of them, and kept the information con?dential. Contacting the alleged suspect in this situation was neither prudent nor necessary at that time. Did Sgt. Gately act with malicious intent when he contacted Gordon Ennis on 10/25/15? This ARP panel does not believe so. We believe this to be an error in judgment while trying to perform potentially con?icting tasks such as a peer assistance team member, along with being the guild president. Did Sgt. Gately maliciously and intentionally relay information to Gordon Ennis regarding the pending search warrant and collection of evidence? This ARP panel does not believe so. Again, we feel Sgt. Gately made an error in answering Ennis? question about what the ?county wanted?, but it was a split second response to a question. Sgt. Gately should have deferred any investigative questions to the Spokane County Sheriff?s Of?ce, or an attorney if one was retained. As for SPD Policy 340.3.5 (Performance), and 3403.7 (Security), we are tasked with determining if Sgt. Gately intentionally released designated con?dential information. Sgt. Gately contends that he was never advised that the information given to him by AC Smith was in fact con?dential. Sgt. Gately testi?ed in his trial that he felt he was acting in his role as the guild president when AC Smith called his guild phone, and wanted to make sure Gordon Ennis did not discuss the particulars of the case with any other people involved, except in an ?of?cial capacity?. Sgt. Gately testi?ed under oath that he did not intentionally release information to Gordon Ennis, or advise him to destroy potential evidence. This ARP panel is held to the standard of Clear and Convincing when rendering a decision on the complaint. Clear and Convincing is de?ned as, a medium level of burden of proof which is a more rigorous standard to meet than the preponderance of evidence standard, but a less rigorous standard to meet than proving evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to meet the standard and prove something by clear and convincing evidence, a party must prove that it is substantially more likely than not that it is true. Sgt. Gately initially called Gordon Ennis on 10/25/15 and advised him not to speak with anyone regarding this case, unless in an of?cial capacity. Other than the noti?cation, nothing was released to Ennis. On his subsequent call to Ennis, Sgt. Gately advised Ennis that he was being placed on Administrative leave pending the investigation, and that a press release would be sent out to the media. Sgt. Gately made this contact with the understanding that he was acting as the guild president, and doing it at the request of, and with the blessings of the department. When asked by Ennis what the county wanted with him, Sgt. Gately immediately responded with ?probably your Sgt. Gately contends there was no intentional release of information on his part, he felt he was just answering a simple question. Sgt. Gately did not expand upon his answer, nor did he instruct him to destroy evidence. After a hung jury of 8-4 to acquit, charges against Sgt. Gately were dismissed. Although errors were made, this ARP does not believe we can prove that it was substantially more likely than not that Sgt. Gately intentionally released information, thereby obstructing or hindering the Spokane County Sheriff?s Of?ce in their criminal investigation of Gordon Ennis. After thoroughly reading and analyzing this investigation, it is this Administrative Review Panels recommendation that matters this serious in nature be handled at the executive or command level when pertaining to administrative leave. FINDING As to the allegation of 1) 3403.5 PERFORMANCE Unauthorized access and/or, intentional release of designated con?dential information, personnel ?le materials, data, forms, or reports. Violating any felony statute or any misdemeanor statute where such violation that may materially affect the employees ability to perform of?cial duties or may be indicative of un?tness for his/her position. Not Sustained 2) 3403.7 SECURITY Unauthorized access and/or, intentional release of designated con?dential information, personnel ?le materials, data, forms, or reports. Not Sustained xx/Z?/b/d Am Captain Date Captain Date B. Arleth D. Singley guk?m 213/5 utenanl Date Date J. Walker JD. Anderson 535M1ll?gg4 4 "332m Lieutenant (Author) Date S. J. Wohl SPOKANE POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM CONFIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PANEL I.A. C16-039 Walker Addendum I have reviewed this incident and concur with the other ARP panel members, but there are other concerns I have regarding the supervision and handling of this incident at a command level. The need for transparency and expectation from the public for the Spokane Police Department to be legitimate is extremely important. There were several errors in judgement or intentional acts committed that either hampered or compromised the Spokane County Sheriff?s Office investigation. The Spokane Police Department policies are very clear and some of these policies and procedures were not followed. AC Selby Smith was the commanding officer overseeing this incident. Captain Eric Olson was acting DSO assisting AC Smith. It appears AC Smith notified former Chief Rick Dobrow of this incident through a couple of phone calls. There were also several emails that Chief Dobrow was aware of, so it is concerning that he couldn?t remember his first phone contact with AC Smith until Sergeant Carr reminded him of it. AC Smith also made numerous other phone calls to several different people after being notified of this incident. AC Smith, Chief Dobrow and Captain Olson all stated this was a confidential incident yet there were several emails and phone calls made by AC Smith to many people. AC Smith should have realized that once he felt the need to notify the PAT team he should have followed proper procedures for PAT Team notification. He should not have made contact with the Guild President to a guild business phone number. He should have also realized the compromising position he placed the investigation in by making contact with the Guild President John Gately especially utilizing the Guild phone number for Sergeant Gately. This should have never been done. Anybody with command level experience should have known that notification to a Guild representative regarding an investigation being handled by an outside agency was a bad decision, which concerns me that this was done either intentionally or just a serious error in judgement. It is also concerning that an incident this serious was not more closely supervised by Chief Dobrow to ensure it was handled properly. It does not appear Chief Dobrow gave this incident the attention it should have had by the Chief of Police. Captain Olson was also involved but it does not appear he provided AC Smith with advice based on his interview. This incident should have been handled as if it were confidential, but there were too many emails and phone calls as well as input from City Hall administration to consider this a confidential incident. SPD involvement in another agencies investigation of SPD employees should have been minimal. AC Smith and Chief Dobrow failed as leaders of the Spokane Police Department to handle this incident appropriately, which is a contributing factor for my findings and recommendations. I would recommend that a review of policies for command level personnel be done to ensure incidents of this nature are handled properly in the future. I would also recommend that the Mayor?s office ensure the personnel he appoints are well aware of the policies and procedures of the Spokane Police Department, so as not to cause embarrassment to the Spokane Police Department and City of Spokane. Lieutenant ate Emily/EM I 5