King County Ombudsman’s Office
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Complainant’s Identity Withheld
Case # 2017-00201
Respondent: John Urquhart, King County Sheriff
August 8, 2017

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………………………………………….

1

ALLEGATIONS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

3

AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………………………

4

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………………..……………………….....

5

OMBUDSMAN FINDINGS……...…………………………………………………………………………………..….

14

RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………………………………………………………

18

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....

20

SHERIFF’S RESPONSE……………………………………………………………………………………………..…….

APPENDIX A

OMBUDSMAN’S REPLY TO SHERIFF………………………………………………………………………………

APPENDIX B

 King County Ombudsman’s Office
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Case # 2017-00201
Complainant’s Identity Withheld 1
Respondent: John Urquhart, King County Sheriff
August 8, 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2016, a former King County Sheriff’s deputy alleged to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) Seattle Division that Sheriff John Urquhart had raped her in 2003 when he was her
supervising sergeant, and since then had engaged in conduct aimed at preventing or
obstructing an investigation. The FBI conducted a review of the allegations for possible federal
criminal violations; all indications are that the FBI did not pursue a rape investigation under the
laws of the State of Washington.
In mid-June, 2016, an FBI agent contacted the Sheriff’s Office Internal Investigations Unit (IIU),
communicated the complainant’s allegations to IIU, and asked whether the complainant had
really been a Sheriff’s deputy. The FBI indicated to IIU that the complainant’s story appeared to
have problems with credibility, but warned that the FBI could commence an investigation if
Sheriff Urquhart were to contact the complainant. The FBI did not apparently pursue the case
further.
On June 21, 2016, IIU personnel met with Sheriff Urquhart about the FBI communications.
Neither Sheriff Urquhart nor IIU ordered or commenced an investigation into the complainant’s
allegations. Nor did they document the allegations through “BlueTeam”, the system for tracking
complaints against Sheriff’s Office members. The IIU commander created contemporaneous
notes of the June 21 meeting, on his work computer, without Sheriff Urquhart’s knowledge.
On November 10, 2016, the complainant reported her allegations to the Seattle Police
Department (SPD). On December 22, 2016, The Seattle Times reported that Sheriff Urquhart
had ordered IIU not to document the complainant’s allegations. On January 5, 2017, the
Sheriff’s Office received SPD’s written report on the complaint. On January 6, 2017, Sheriff
Urquhart ordered the complainant’s allegations documented in BlueTeam.
On February 10, 2017, the complainant filed a complaint with the Ombudsman’s Office. We
investigated the administrative acts at issue pursuant to the Ombudsman’s authority. We did

1

To protect privacy, this report does not identify the complainant by name.

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 2 of 20

not investigate the complainant’s criminal allegations, which fall outside our office’s
jurisdiction. As explained in this report, we find that:
1. Sheriff’s Office rules and procedures required that the complainant’s allegations be
documented and investigated when IIU received them in July 2016.
2. Sheriff Urquhart had a conflict of interest when he determined that neither an
investigation nor documentation of the complainant’s allegations was necessary in
June 2016 when the Sheriff’s Office received them.
3. The Internal Investigations Unit Commander reasonably understood that Sheriff
Urquhart had directed him not to document the complainant’s allegations through
BlueTeam.
4. The Sheriff’s Office should have referred the complainant’s allegations to an outside
local or state law enforcement authority for investigation, and documented the
allegations through BlueTeam as soon as possible after the FBI communicated them to
IIU.
Stemming from our findings, we make the following recommendations to the Sheriff’s Office:
1. The Sheriff’s Office should establish a written policy requiring the appointment of an
external, independent official to investigate serious complaints against the Sheriff or
other senior command staff. That official should have appropriate expertise and
jurisdiction to investigate the elements of the alleged offense.
2. The Sheriff’s Office should clarify its rules and procedures to ensure that review and
investigation of all complaints against Sheriff’s Office employees are documented
through BlueTeam with appropriate security classifications.
In April 2017, the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (PAO) stated that: it had reviewed
the complainant’s allegations; the allegations fall outside the applicable statute of limitations;
and the evidence was insufficient to support criminal charges against Sheriff Urquhart. On May
1, 2017, an SPD memorandum stated that “interviews revealed that no crime had occurred.”

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 3 of 20

ALLEGATIONS
The complainant, a former King County Sheriff’s deputy, made numerous allegations against
Sheriff Urquhart and a member of his staff. The allegations stem from the complainant’s 2016
report to the FBI that Sheriff Urquhart raped her in 2003 while he was her supervising
sergeant.2
Upon review, the Ombudsman’s Office determined that the allegations appropriate for
investigation by our office are that:
1. Sheriff Urquhart told his Internal Investigations Unit (IIU) “not only not to investigate
this situation but not to document it” when IIU informed the Sheriff that the FBI told an
IIU sergeant about the complainant’s rape allegation in July 2016;
2. The complainant’s allegations should have been investigated; and,
3. Sheriff Urquhart should be held to the same standards as any other member of the
department.3

AUTHORITY
The King County Ombudsman’s Office was created by the voters of King County in the County
Home Rule Charter of 1968 and operates as an independent office within the Legislative Branch
of King County government. Under King County Code section 2.52, the Office is authorized to
investigate the administrative conduct of King County agencies and employees in response to
complaints from the public, or on its own initiative, and to publish findings and
recommendations for improving the administration of county government.4 The Office
promotes public confidence in King County government by responding to issues in an impartial,
efficient and timely manner. The King County Code provides,
In selecting matters for his [sic] attention, the director shall address himself [sic]
particularly to an administrative act that might be:

2

Sheriff Urquhart has repeatedly denied the complainant’s allegations against him, including in sworn testimony.
Urquhart Decl. 2, December 5, 2016; Urquhart Dep. 117-18; Urquhart letter to Calderwood at 4, March 27, 2017;
Lewis Kamb, “King County Sheriff John Urquhart won’t face charges in alleged rape almost 15 years ago”, The
Seattle Times, April 11, 2017.
3
Complainant letter to Ombudsman’s Office, February 10, 2017. The letter included allegations that: her
neighborhood appeared to have been under surveillance for months; text messages to Sheriff Urquhart went
missing from her computer and phone; Sheriff Urquhart asked her to avoid a subpoena in an upcoming trial; she
came home to find her gas stove on full blast; and, Sheriff Urquhart and his chief of staff had a secret file about
her.
4
The Ombudsman’s Office also investigates alleged violations of the county Employee Code of Ethics (KCC 3.04),
Whistleblower Protection Code (KCC 3.42), and Lobbyist Disclosure code (KCC 1.07).

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 4 of 20

1. Contrary to law or regulation;
2. Unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, or inconsistent with the general
course of an administrative agency's functioning;
3. Arbitrary in ascertainment of facts;
4. Improper in motivation or based on irrelevant considerations;
5. Unclear or inadequately explained when reasons should have been
revealed;
6. Inefficiently performed; or
7. Otherwise objectionable.
The director also may recommend strengthening procedures and practices of
administrative agencies.[5]
The Ombudsman’s Office does not pursue criminal investigations, but refers matters to the
appropriate authorities if there is reason to believe criminal proceedings are warranted.6

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
The complainant submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman’s Office by email on February 10,
2017. Following a review for jurisdictional sufficiency, the Ombudsman’s Office transmitted the
complaint to Sheriff Urquhart on February 14. We notified the complainant of the transmittal
that same day, and spoke with her by telephone on February 16. We requested that Sheriff
Urquhart provide a written response, which he did on March 27. Sheriff Urquhart provided an
additional written response on April 15, with deposition transcripts we had requested after
reviewing his first response.
As part of this investigation, we reviewed the Sheriff’s Office General Orders Manual, IIU
Standard Operating Procedures, expert reports recommending best practices for police internal
affairs units, and deposition transcripts (cited below) from Shoblom, et al v. King County, No.
15-2-09687-7, a recently-settled King County Superior Court retaliation lawsuit that alleged
wrongdoing materially unrelated to this investigation, and filed by one current Sheriff’s deputy
and two former deputies.7
We interviewed the following Sheriff’s Office personnel: Captain Jesse Anderson; Lance King,
Human Resources Manager; Captain Mark Konoske; Captain DJ Nesel; and Sheriff John
5

KCC 2.52.100(A) & (B).
KCC 2.52.160.
7
See Lewis Kamb, “King County to settle lawsuit against Sheriff, aides for $1.35M over retaliation claims,” The
Seattle Times, April 11, 2017, http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/king-county-to-settle-lawsuit-againstsheriff-aides-for-135-million/ (accessed May 30, 2017).
6

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 5 of 20

Urquhart. We interviewed Robert Davis, a law enforcement consultant with Hillard Heintz. We
sent a written interview request to retired Sergeant Michael Mullinax, who did not respond. We
contacted the FBI Seattle Division, which declined to provide further information.
On June 23, pursuant to KCC 2.52.240, we transmitted a draft of these findings and
recommendations to Sheriff Urquhart, with the opportunity to provide, by June 30, a written
statement or document to be appended to the final findings and recommendations. On June
29, the Sheriff requested a 30-day extension, which we granted consistent with our ordinary
practice. On August 1, the Sheriff’s Office requested an additional extension to August 11. We
granted a two-day extension until August 3, and received the Sheriff’s response on that date.
These final findings and recommendations follow.
Senior Deputy Ombudsman Jon Stier conducted the investigation and produced this report with
the oversight of Ombudsman-Director Amy Calderwood.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Sheriff’s Internal Investigations Unit
The King County Sheriff’s Office Internal Investigations Unit (IIU) investigates complaints of
misconduct involving Sheriff’s Office employees.8 According to the Sheriff’s Office General
Orders Manual,
It is the Sheriff’s Office policy to promptly, thoroughly and fairly, investigate
alleged misconduct involving its members. Supervisors and Commanders who
are assigned to review complaints shall ensure that all complaints are
appropriately investigated and documented according to procedures established
in this policy.[9]
An on-duty supervisor who “receives notification or information that a member has been . . .
accused of committing a crime” is required to “[e]nsure that appropriate law enforcement
action has been initiated”. The allegations “shall be investigated by the appropriate police

8

King County Sheriff’s Office, KCSO Internal Investigation Process, at 4,
1http://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/safety/sheriff/documents/CivilForms/i/IIU_Process.ashx?la=en, undated
(accessed May 15, 2017).
9
King County Sheriff’s Office General Orders Manual (hereafter, “GOM”) section 3.03.005.

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 6 of 20

agency”.10 IIU accepts third-party complaints.11 Sheriff Urquhart has directed that, “every
complaint will be reported and tracked”. (Emphasis in original.)12
The IIU Commander ensures that the Sheriff is notified when a misconduct complaint is likely to
be newsworthy, involves a criminal investigation, or involves Sheriff’s Office command staff.13
IIU is required to conduct an administrative investigation for possible misconduct when there is
a criminal complaint against a Sheriff’s Office employee. The internal (administrative)
investigation may run concurrently with a separate criminal investigation.14 Complaints
involving IIU personnel are to be forwarded directly to the Sheriff, who must appoint non-IIU
personnel to investigate.15
Internal investigations must be conducted fairly and impartially by a neutral investigator.16
However, Sheriff Urquhart stated that he has “the prerogative and the authority to
countermand” IIU Standard Operating Procedures and General Orders whenever he or his
leadership team believe it is in the best interests of the Sheriff’s Office.17 There is no written
policy or procedure for misconduct complaints against the Sheriff or other members who rank
above the IIU Commander.18
Four IIU sergeants report to the IIU Commander, who in turn reports directly to the Sheriff.19
The Sheriff monitors and receives briefings on all important IIU investigations.20 Sheriff
Urquhart said he can order IIU not to conduct an investigation, and could discipline IIU
personnel if they were to disobey the order.21

10

GOM 3.03.020(2) & (3).
Urquhart interview with Stier, May 8, 2017; Deposition of DJ Nesel (hereafter, “Nesel Dep.”) Vol. I at 11-12; King
County Sheriff’s Office, KCSO Internal Investigation Process,
1http://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/safety/sheriff/documents/CivilForms/i/IIU_Process.ashx?la=en, undated
(accessed May 15, 2017).
12
King County Sheriff’s Office, Internal Investigations Unit, 2014 Annual Report,
http://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/safety/sheriff/internal-investigations-unit/2014-kcso-iiu-annualreport.ashx?la=en (accessed May 24, 2017).
13
GOM 3.03.080(3).
14
King County Sheriff’s Office Internal Investigations Unit Standard Operating Procedures (hereafter, “IIU SOP”)
section II.B.2 & II.D.10; GOM 3.03.080(4)(a) .
15
GOM 3.03.060.
16
IIU SOP III.A.
17
Urquhart email to Stier, April 15, 2017.
18
Anderson interview with Stier, April 24, 2017; see GOM 3.03.060.
19
Urquhart interview with Stier, May 8, 2017.
20
Deposition of John Urquhart (hereafter, “Urquhart Dep.”) 139, 145.
21
Urquhart Dep. 109.
11

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 7 of 20

Captain Mark Konoske served as IIU Commander from July 1, 2016 until June 19, 2017.22
Captain Jesse Anderson served as IIU Commander from July 1, 2014 until June 30, 2016.23
Captain DJ Nesel served as IIU Commander from approximately December 2012 until June 30,
2014.24

BlueTeam
BlueTeam is a digital platform developed for public safety agencies to document, review, and
manage incidents. A BlueTeam entry will appear in IAPro, professional standards software used
by over 700 public safety agencies in five countries.25 The King County Sheriff’s Office uses the
BlueTeam system for capturing misconduct allegations against employees.26 Types of required27
Sheriff’s Office BlueTeam entries include:
IIU Designation
Inquiry

Major Investigation

Preliminary
NIM
SAL

Definition
A BlueTeam entry that documents any communication directed
to a member of the department, which, if true, alleges employee
misconduct.
Alleged violations that would likely result in suspension,
demotion, termination or the filing of criminal charges if
sustained.
A BlueTeam entry documenting any reported or observed
possible violations of policy.
“Non-Investigation Matter”: a concern expressed by a citizen
that, if true, is not an allegation of misconduct.
“Supervisor Action Log”: a BlueTeam entry documenting
supervisory actions related to minor policy infractions.

For allegations of employee misconduct, “[t]he details of the incident will be entered in Blue
Team as an inquiry and investigated by IIU.”28 Allegations classified as NIM or SAL are also
entered into BlueTeam.29 Any Sheriff’s Office supervisor or IIU member can enter allegations of
possible policy violations through BlueTeam, with follow-up provided by the chain of command,

22

Konoske interview with Stier, April 26, 2017; Konoske email to Stier, June 19, 2017..
Deposition of Jesse Anderson (hereafter, “Anderson Dep.”) Vol. I at 11.
24
Nesel Dep. Vol. I at 9.
25
http://www.iapro.com/ (accessed May 15, 2017).
26
Anderson interview with Stier, April 24, 2017.
27
GOM 3.03.010; IIU SOP (I)(1).
28
GOM 3.03.030(3).
29
Urquhart Dep. 133.
23

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 8 of 20

IIU, or both.30 The IIU process is to open a new case as a “Preliminary,” then determine whether
it is a NIM, SAL, or Inquiry.31
IIU will load an allegation through BlueTeam even if an early check shows the alleged incident
did not happen. “Whether or not we investigate it, we determine that based on the nature of
the complaint. But at least we load that information up into our system so we have
documentation of it”.32 If allegations are not documented in BlueTeam, they would not
ordinarily be documented anywhere.33 According to Captain Anderson, it is “ingrained” in him
that “anything that’s brought to our attention goes into BlueTeam.”34 But Sheriff Urquhart said
he has directed that at least several complaints, other than the complainant’s, not be logged. 35
Captain Konoske said IIU might not BlueTeam an issue if it involves legal issues that would be
documented elsewhere in the Sheriff’s Office, or if a complaint presents a conflict of interest, in
which case the IIU Commander would bring the matter to Sheriff’s Office legal staff. 36 The
Sheriff’s Office Human Resources unit BlueTeams all discrimination complaints that, if true,
could be a violation of policy.
The Human Resources Director said he has never failed to BlueTeam and investigate such a
complaint. But he leaves it up to the appropriate manager to decide whether to BlueTeam a
complaint that, if true, would not rise to the level of a policy violation. Those issues may be
handled solely within a work unit. Moreover, Sheriff’s Office staff do not BlueTeam oral
allegations received at the Sheriff’s Office front desk when the allegations are entirely noncredible, but non-credible written complaints are saved.37
Once a BlueTeam entry is made, access to the entry may be internally restricted. The highest
BlueTeam security classification for an entry may restrict access to as few as four senior
Sheriff’s Office officials.38 Outside the Sheriff’s Office, the King County Office of Law
Enforcement Oversight has password-protected access to BlueTeam entries, though by

30

Deposition of Michael Mullinax (hereafter, “Mullinax Dep.”) 69.
Nesel interview with Stier, April 25, 2017; Anderson interview with Stier, April 24, 2017.
32
Anderson Dep. Vol. II at 22.
33
Konoske interview with Stier, April 26, 2017; Nesel interview with Stier, April 25, 2017; Anderson interview with
Stier, April 24, 2017.
34
Anderson Dep. 22, 31.
35
Urquhart email to Stier, April 15, 2017. Two of the complaints Urquhart cited were against previous IIU
commanders, and one was against a sergeant, Urquhart’s. The Ombudsman’s Office did not investigate the
circumstances of Urquhart’s decisions in those matters, as they were outside the scope of this complaint. Our
recommendations, below, if implemented, would ensure proper documentation in the future.
36
Konoske interview with Stier, April 26, 2017.
37
King Interview with Stier, April 28, 2017.
38
Konoske interview with Stier, April 26, 2017; Nesel interview with Stier, April 25, 2017; Anderson interview with
Stier, April 24, 2017.
31

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 9 of 20

agreement that office is authorized to view only Inquiries, not NIMs or SALS.39 The
Ombudsman’s Office and King County Auditor’s Office may review any BlueTeam entry
consistent with their duties.40 BlueTeam entries are also publicly releasable, subject to
exemptions from disclosure as authorized by law.41

The FBI’s Contact with IIU
In mid-June 2016, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent “Ryan” called IIU Sergeant
Michael Mullinax. In a series of conversations, Ryan: asked Sergeant Mullinax if the complainant
had really been a Sheriff’s deputy; told Sergeant Mullinax that the complainant alleged to the
FBI that Sheriff Urquhart raped her in 2003; and said the FBI had some concerns about the
complainant’s mental state.42 The FBI believed that the complainant’s motivations and
credibility were suspect, and something was not right about her accusation.43 Ryan indicated
that he was completing a report about the complaint for his supervisor, and thought that would
be the end of it.44
Sergeant Mullinax told Ryan he felt he had to tell that information to Sheriff Urquhart and
Captain Anderson, the IIU Commander at the time. Ryan asked Sergeant Mullinax not to tell
Sheriff Urquhart until Sergeant Mullinax spoke with Ryan’s supervisor, who then called
Sergeant Mullinax. The FBI supervisor asked Sergeant Mullinax not to tell Sheriff Urquhart, but
Sergeant Mullinax said he felt he had to. Ultimately, the supervisor and Sergeant Mullinax came
to an understanding that Sergeant Mullinax could tell Sheriff Urquhart, but the supervisor
warned that the FBI might open a formal investigation if Sheriff Urquhart were to contact the
complainant.45 The FBI Seattle Division declined to provide additional information to the
Ombudsman’s Office concerning the Bureau’s handling of the matter.46

July 2016 Decision not to Investigate the Complainant’s Allegations
After the call with the FBI supervisor, Sergeant Mullinax told Captain Anderson about his
conversations with the FBI. Captain Anderson and Sergeant Mullinax planned to meet with

39

Anderson interview with Stier, April 24, 2017.
KCC 2.52.090(C); KCC 2.10.040.
41
RCW Chapter 42.56.
42
Mullinax Dep. 59-61, 66.
43
Anderson File Memo, June 21, 2016.
44
Mullinax Dep. 59-61, 66.
45
Mullinax Dep. 61-64.
46
Greg Jennings telephone call to Stier, June 20, 2017.
40

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 10 of 20

Sheriff Urquhart the next week.47 They were uncomfortable about it but felt they had no
choice.48
Captain Anderson and Sergeant Mullinax met with Sheriff Urquhart on June 21, 2016.49
Sergeant Mullinax told Sheriff Urquhart about his conversations with the FBI, including the rape
allegation.50 Captain Anderson knew from his years as IIU Commander that Sheriff Urquhart
had enemies,51 so he told Sheriff Urquhart he thought maybe someone put the complainant up
to making the accusation.52
Captain Anderson did not suggest to Sheriff Urquhart that an investigation was appropriate. His
position at the time was that the FBI had concerns about the complainant’s credibility and was
not moving forward with a criminal investigation.53 Captain Anderson later said that the nature
of the allegation would normally be designated as an Inquiry and investigated, because if true,
it would be conduct that is criminal in nature.54 But at the time, Captain Anderson believed it
was Sheriff Urquhart’s prerogative to make the final call55 and to decide whether to move
forward with an investigation. Captain Anderson later testified that “there’s a conflict there, if
you’re the one that’s being accused, to make that decision.”56
Sergeant Mullinax later testified that he believed a rape allegation against the Sheriff should be
investigated, as it can be both a criminal and an (internal) policy violation.57 However, Sergeant
Mullinax thought IIU could not investigate the Sheriff, though an outside agency could, he said,
consistent with past practice.58
Sheriff Urquhart did not tell Captain Anderson and Sergeant Mullinax to investigate the
complainant’s allegations, or not to investigate them, in the June 21, 2016 meeting. Sheriff
Urquhart later said that he thought the FBI had already investigated.59 He did not think it was
important for IIU to investigate, “[p]artially because it involves me. It’s also because it is not a

47

Mullinax Dep. 66; Anderson Vol. II at Dep. 14.
Anderson Dep. Vol. II at 15.
49
Anderson File Memo, June 21, 2016; Mullinax Dep. 67.
50
Urquhart Dep. 113-14; Anderson File Memo, June 21, 2016; Mullinax Dep. 67.
51
Anderson Dep. Vol. II at 18.
52
Anderson File Memo, June 21, 2016.
53
Anderson Dep. Vol. II at 38-39.
54
Anderson interview with Stier, April 24, 2017; see GOM 3.03.080(4); IIU SOP II.B.2.
55
Anderson Dep. Vol. II at 46.
56
Anderson Dep. Vol. II at 38-39.
57
Mullinax Dep. 65.
58
Mullinax Dep. 70.
59
Urquhart letter to Calderwood at 4, March 27, 2017; Urquhart interview with Stier, May 8, 2017.
48

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 11 of 20

credible complainant and she didn’t complain at all to the Sheriff’s Office. She complained to
the FBI”.60 Neither Captain Anderson nor anyone at IIU commenced an investigation.61
Shortly after the June 21 meeting with Sheriff Urquhart, Captain Anderson wrote and stored
notes, titled, “Sheriff Urquhart conversations”, on his county laptop computer, to memorialize
the meeting.62 Captain Anderson did not ask Sheriff Urquhart for permission to write the notes,
did not tell Sheriff Urquhart about the notes,63 and Sheriff Urquhart did not know of the notes
until county attorneys showed him in October 2016.64 He did not tell Captain Anderson to write
or not write the meeting notes.65 Captain Anderson said he made notes like these only four
times during his two-year tenure as IIU Commander.66
In October 2016, Robert Davis, a law enforcement consultant and former Chief of Police for San
Jose, California, provided expert deposition testimony regarding the Sheriff’s Office decision
not to investigate the complainant’s allegations. The deposition was part of a retaliation lawsuit
involving the Sheriff’s Office.67
Mr. Davis offered opinions based on Captain Anderson’s contemporaneous notes that
document the June 21 meeting. Mr. Davis had no direct personal knowledge about the
complaint or Sheriff Urquhart’s and IIU’s June 21 meeting. Mr. Davis was unsure how the FBI
received the rape allegation, whether directly from the complainant or from a third or fourth
party. He believed that IIU had not received an internal administrative complaint to investigate,
and that based on what he saw in Captain Anderson’s memo, the FBI had already determined
that there were credibility problems and no criminal complaint. Mr. Davis did not think IIU
should have opened an investigation, but he acknowledged that there are “a lot of variables”.68
The Ombudsman’s Office interviewed Mr. Davis separately in June 2017. Mr. Davis said that if
FBI agents thought the allegations might have any credibility, they would generally follow a
protocol, such as referring the matter to the state police or to local prosecutors. “The FBI isn’t
going to tip off the Sheriff’s Office if they think the allegations might be credible.” The extent to
which the FBI vetted the complainant’s allegations here is a variable, Mr. Davis said, and it
could be argued that the FBI had put the Sheriff’s Office in a “tough spot” by communicating
the complainant’s allegation to IIU:
60

Urquhart Dep. 114; Urquhart letter to Calderwood at 2 (The FBI “said nothing about transmitting, filing,
reporting, or communicating a complaint” to IIU).
61
Anderson Dep. Vol. I at 36.
62
Anderson File Memo, June 21, 2016; Anderson Dep. Vol. II at 42-43.
63
Anderson interview with Stier, April 24, 2017.
64
Urquhart interview with Stier, May 8, 2017.
65
Urquhart interview with Stier, May 8, 2017.
66
Anderson interview with Stier, April 24, 2017.
67
Shoblom, et al v. King County, No. 15-2-09687-7. The complainant in this case was not directly involved in the
Shoblom case.
68
Deposition of Robert Davis (hereafter, “Davis Dep.”) 123-31.

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 12 of 20

Here, even if the statute of limitations had run, the FBI should’ve followed
protocol as an outside entity and called the local PAO or other appropriate state
organization empowered to conduct a criminal investigation of a potential
violation of any Washington State penal codes and let those officials make such a
determination about how to handle the case. This would preserve the ability to
conduct appropriate criminal investigations, if warranted, as well as provide
objectivity and transparency to the ultimate outcomes. [69]

July 2016 Decision not to Document the Complainant’s Allegations through BlueTeam
Captain Anderson’s contemporaneous notes of the June 21 meeting with Sheriff Urquhart
state, in pertinent part,
I asked the Sheriff if he would like this documented in Blue Team and he said no.
I suggested that a NIM [Non-Investigated Matter designation] would be
appropriate as this is what we would do if we received a complaint like this on
other department members. He said he didn’t think it was necessary. I followed
his direction.[70]
Captain Anderson perceived that Sheriff Urquhart had directed or ordered him not to
document the rape allegation as a NIM. Captain Anderson believed that he would have been
insubordinate and subject to discipline if he had violated Sheriff Urquhart’s direction.71 At the
time of the June 21 meeting, Captain Anderson was “concerned that this is going to come up
again at some point” and felt it would be in Sheriff Urquhart’s interests to document it. 72
Captain Anderson later testified that he disagreed with Sheriff Urquhart’s direction, as it was
contrary to policy.73
Sergeant Mullinax was not sure whether he heard Captain Anderson ask Sheriff Urquhart if he
would like the matter documented in BlueTeam, and Sheriff Urquhart’s response, during the
June 21 meeting with Sheriff Urquhart, or if he heard it from Captain Anderson after Sergeant
Mullinax was excused from the meeting.74 But Sergeant Mullinax said Captain Anderson’s notes
of the June 21 meeting were “pretty much” accurate. “I was told by the supervisor that this
incident was going nowhere”, Sergeant Mullinax said.75
69

Davis interview with Stier, June 5, 2017.
Anderson File Memo, June 21, 2016.
71
Anderson Dep. Vol. I at 35; Anderson Dep. Vol. II at 59, 61.
72
Anderson Dep. Vol. II at 60.
73
Anderson Dep. Vol. II at 45.
74
Mullinax Dep. 68.
75
Mullinax Dep. 67.
70

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 13 of 20

Sheriff Urquhart denied giving Captain Anderson a direct order not to enter the complainant’s
allegations into BlueTeam.76 He later testified, “I never told them not to ‘document’ the
allegation . . . Captain Anderson asked me if I would like this documented in BlueTeam and I
said no. When asked, I also told him a NIM was not necessary.”77
Sheriff Urquhart did not want the rape allegation documented in BlueTeam, because “lots of
people in the department have access to that and could get that out of there. And you have
already seen what rumors do in the sheriff’s office when you have got 1100 employees. And I
saw no reason to let that happen because it never—the incident never happened.” Sheriff
Urquhart was also concerned about his professional and personal reputation, and about the
complainant’s reputation, due to the possibility that a BlueTeam entry or an investigation could
be publicly disclosed.78
Sheriff Urquhart said he was not sure whether the FBI generally investigates state felony
allegations, but “on something like this they’d probably look at some kind of federal civil rights
or public corruption, not the elements of a state rape statute.”79 The FBI has confirmed that it
reviewed the allegations “for possible federal criminal violations”.80 There are no indications
that the FBI investigated the alleged rape, which is typically a state crime.
Law enforcement consultant Robert Davis, in his October 2016 deposition, said there would
have been no value in logging a NIM since the FBI and Sheriff’s Office had already determined
that they would not investigate. But there could be damage to Sheriff Urquhart’s and the
complainant’s reputations, Mr. Davis said, from rumors that could start if the allegations were
entered into BlueTeam.81 During his deposition, Mr. Davis was unaware of the various security
classifications available for Sheriff’s Office BlueTeam entries, but he later said that rumors could
begin even if only three or four people had access to an entry.82
In his deposition and June 2017 interview, Mr. Davis emphasized that the situation was
unusual, and that the FBI was aware of the allegations and had already logged them.
Nevertheless, Mr. Davis said, it would have been a good idea for Sheriff Urquhart to have told
76

Urquhart Dep. 133-34.
Urquhart letter to Calderwood at 5, March 27, 2017. Urquhart later said that “Anderson asked me if I thought
BlueTeam was necessary and I said no.” Urquhart interview with Stier, May 8, 2017. In an earlier deposition,
Urquhart said, “What [Anderson] said was, ‘Do you think we should document this in BlueTeam?’ And I said, ‘No, I
don’t think we should.’” Urquhart Dep. 121.
78
Urquhart Dep. 123.
79
Urquhart interview with Stier, May 8, 2017.
80
Ayn S. Dietrich email to Lewis Kamb, December 2, 2016, reported in, Lewis Kamb, “King County Sheriff Urquhart
told investigators to ignore woman’s claim he raped her, documents say”, The Seattle Times, December 22, 2016.
81
Davis Dep. 123-33.
82
Davis interview with Stier, June 5, 2017.
77

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 14 of 20

the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office about the allegations after he learned of them from Sergeant
Mullinax and Captain Anderson.83

January 2017 Decision to Document the Complainant’s Allegations in BlueTeam
On November 10, 2016, the complainant reported the alleged rape to the Seattle Police
Department.84 On December 22, The Seattle Times published an article detailing the FBI contact
with Sergeant Mullinax, and Captain Anderson’s October 2016 testimony that Sheriff Urquhart
told him not to document the complainant’s allegations in BlueTeam.85 On January 4, 2017, SPD
sent a copy of the police report to the Sheriff’s Office. The next day, January 5, 2017, Sheriff
Urquhart instructed IIU Commander Konoske to document the complainant’s allegations in
BlueTeam, which Captain Konoske did.86 Sheriff Urquhart explained that, “Once she provided
specifics to SPD that we had never heard before, I ordered it logged into Blue Team”. (Emphasis
in original.)87
On April 10, 2017, the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office stated that the rape allegation
was beyond the ten-year statute of limitations, and that the evidence was “insufficient to
support criminal charges.”88 On May 1, 2017, an SPD memorandum stated that “interviews
revealed that no crime had occurred.”89

OMBUDSMAN FINDINGS
The Ombudsman’s Office makes findings based on a preponderance of the evidence standard
of proof. A preponderance means we are persuaded that a fact at issue is more likely true than
not.
1. Sheriff’s Office rules and procedures required that the complainant’s allegations be
documented and investigated when IIU received them in July 2016.
Sheriff Urquhart emphasized that the complainant did not file a complaint directly with the
Sheriff’s Office, and that the FBI did not contact IIU with the purpose of filing a complaint. He

83

Davis telephone conversation with Stier, June 9, 2017.
Seattle Police Department, General Offense # 2016-406737.
85
Lewis Kamb, “King County Sheriff Urquhart told investigators to ignore woman’s claim he raped her, documents
say”, The Seattle Times, December 22, 2016.
86
King County Sheriff’s Office IIU# IIU2017-001.
87
Urquhart email to Stier, April 15, 2017.
88
Dan Donohoe email to Cindy West, April 10, 2017.
89
Sgt. Susanna Monroe memorandum to Assistant Chief Bob Mercer, May 1, 2017.
84

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 15 of 20

therefore maintained that neither an investigation nor documentation through BlueTeam was
necessary.90
Sheriff’s Office policy is to “promptly, thoroughly and fairly, investigate alleged misconduct
involving its members. Supervisors and Commanders who are assigned to review complaints
shall ensure that all complaints are appropriately investigated and documented according to
[established] procedures.”91 An on-duty supervisor who “receives notification or information
that a member has been . . . accused of committing a crime” is required to “[e]nsure that
appropriate law enforcement action has been initiated”. The allegations “shall be investigated
by the appropriate police agency”.92 The Sheriff’s Office accepts complaints from third parties.93
Here, Sheriff Urquhart has acknowledged that the complainant made a first-hand complaint to
the FBI.94 Bureau staff apparently believed the complaint was significant enough to review it for
possible federal criminal violations, then communicate the alleged misconduct to IIU at the
conclusion of that review.95 The complaint therefore should have been “investigated and
documented according to” established Sheriff’s Office procedures.96 This is consistent with
Captain Anderson’s understanding that “anything that’s brought to our attention” in IIU
concerning possible misconduct by Sheriff’s Office personnel should be documented whether
or not the matter ultimately is fully investigated.97
Sheriff Urquhart and law enforcement consultant Robert Davis also argue that the FBI’s review
of the complainant’s allegations eliminated IIU’s duty to appropriately investigate and
document the allegations internally. But Sheriff’s Office policies and practices mandate an
internal Sheriff’s Office review, documented through BlueTeam, for possible violations of
internal policy.98 A criminal investigation by an outside agency does not change that.
Moreover, the extent and depth of the FBI’s review here remains unknown outside the Bureau.
What is known is that the FBI reviewed the allegations for possible federal criminal violations,
consistent with its federal jurisdiction. There is no indication that the Bureau investigated the
allegations for possible state criminal violations. Sheriff Urquhart’s and Mr. Davis’ inferences
and assumptions about the FBI’s actions or omissions, protocols it may have followed, and the
90

Urquhart Dep. 114; Urquhart letter to Calderwood at 2 (the FBI “said nothing about transmitting, filing,
reporting, or communicating a complaint” to IIU).
91
GOM 3.03.005.
92
GOM 3.03.020(2) & (3).
93
Urquhart interview with Stier, May 8, 2017; Nesel Dep. Vol. I at 11-12; Anderson Dep. Vol. II at 31; King County
Sheriff’s Office, KCSO Internal Investigation Process.
94
Urquhart Dep. 113-14.
95
Mullinax Dep. 59-61, 66.
96
GOM 3.03.005.
97
Anderson Dep. Vol. II at 22, 31.
98
GOM 3.03.010; IIU SOP (I)(1).

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 16 of 20

reasons for its decisions, are inadequately supported and do not justify noncompliance with
Sheriff’s Office rules here.
2. Sheriff Urquhart had a conflict of interest99 when he determined that neither an
investigation nor documentation of the complainant’s allegations was necessary in
June 2016 when the Sheriff’s Office received them.
Sheriff Urquhart acknowledged that he was concerned about his professional and personal
reputation when considering whether the complainant’s allegations should be documented in
BlueTeam. Sheriff Urquhart’s reputational concerns conflicted with his duty as Sheriff to ensure
that serious allegations against Sheriff’s Office members are investigated. Because Sheriff
Urquhart was the accused, he could not impartially decide whether the need to follow Sheriff’s
Office rules was outweighed by his accuser’s possible credibility problems, and by any
hypothetical harm that disclosure might do to the Sheriff’s Office.
3. The Internal Investigations Unit Commander reasonably understood that Sheriff
Urquhart had directed him not to document the complainant’s allegations through
BlueTeam.
Sheriff Urquhart denied giving Captain Anderson a direct order not to document the
complainant’s allegations. There is uncertainty about whether Captain Anderson asked Sheriff
Urquhart if he “should” BlueTeam the allegations, or if Sheriff Urquhart thought it was
“necessary” to BlueTeam them; and whether Sheriff Urquhart said “no” in response to Captain
Anderson’s suggestion, or “no, I don’t think we should”. Whatever combination of words were
spoken, Captain Anderson believed that Sheriff Urquhart had given him a direct order not to
document the complainant’s allegations in BlueTeam. Sergeant Mullinax also understood the
direction to be that the allegations were not to be BlueTeamed and that “this incident is going
nowhere.”
As IIU Commander, Captain Anderson reported directly to Sheriff Urquhart and believed that
failure to comply with Sheriff Urquhart’s words would be insubordination. Due to their
reporting relationship, Sheriff Urquhart should have clearly communicated to Captain Anderson
that it was Captain Anderson’s sole decision whether to document the allegations if that is what
Sheriff Urquhart intended.
In light of the foregoing, Captain Anderson reasonably understood Sheriff Urquhart to be
directing him. The fact that Captain Anderson separately decided to document the Urquhart
99

The term “conflict of interest” used in this finding has its ordinary meaning: “a conflict between the private
interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust”. https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/conflict%20of%20interest (accessed June 20, 2017). The complainant here has not alleged
that Sheriff Urquhart violated any ethics laws in this case, and we have no reason to believe that he might have.

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 17 of 20

conversation, without Sheriff Urquhart’s knowledge, does not undo Sheriff Urquhart’s
direction. Nor need we determine whether Sheriff Urquhart directed Captain Anderson not to
“document” or “BlueTeam” the allegations. BlueTeam is normally the way to document such an
allegation at the Sheriff’s Office. In context, the terms are synonymous.
4. The Sheriff’s Office should have referred the complainant’s allegations to an outside
local or state law enforcement authority for investigation, and documented the
allegations through BlueTeam as soon as possible after the FBI communicated them to
IIU.
A Sheriff’s Office internal (administrative) investigation may run concurrently with a separate
criminal investigation.100 Internal investigations must be conducted fairly and impartially by a
neutral investigator.101 For allegations of employee misconduct, “[t]he details of the incident
will be entered in Blue Team as an inquiry and investigated by IIU.”102
Neither Captain Anderson, Sergeant Mullinax, nor any other King County Sheriff’s Office
personnel could reasonably be expected to adequately separate their positions as subordinates
to the King County Sheriff from their duty to investigate a rape allegation against that Sheriff.
Thus, Captain Anderson and Sergeant Mullinax had a conflict of interest due to their reporting
relationship to Sheriff Urquhart. And as discussed, bringing the complaint to Sheriff Urquhart
for disposition created a conflict of interest between Sheriff Urquhart’s personal reputational
interests and his duties as Sheriff.
Lacking written procedures for the proper routing of serious allegations made specifically
against the Sheriff, it might have been prudent for Captain Anderson to have consulted the
Sheriff’s Office Legal Advisor about the need to appoint an external, independent official to
investigate the complainant’s allegations.103 That independent official should be experienced in
investigating sexual assault allegations under the laws of the State of Washington.

100

GOM 3.03.080(4)(a); IIU SOP II..B.2 & II.D.10.
IIU SOP III.A.
102
GOM 3.03.030(3).
103
That course of action would have been consistent with Captain Konoske’s testimony concerning what he would
do in a similar situation. Konoske interview with Stier, April 26, 2017.
101

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 18 of 20

OMBUDSMAN RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Sheriff’s Office should establish a written policy requiring the appointment of an
external, independent official to investigate serious complaints against the Sheriff or
other senior command staff. That official should have appropriate expertise and
jurisdiction to investigate the elements of the alleged offense.
An expert report, prepared by twelve major city and county law enforcement agencies for the
U.S. Department of Justice, states that,
Internal Affairs should investigate all allegations of misconduct of commandlevel personnel with the exceptions of allegations against the agency head or in
any instance where there is an apparent conflict of interest. [104]
The report recommends that,
Agencies should have a policy to address any instance where Internal Affairs
confronts a conflict of interest or believes that it cannot conduct an objective
and unbiased investigation, such as when the agency head or Internal Affairs
commander is the subject of the complaint.[105]
A separate Justice Department report, prepared by the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, observes that,
When a complaint allegation involves the chief executive or a member of his or
her executive staff or when there are not enough resources to conduct an
internal investigation, an agency can use an external investigator or investigative
agency to handle the complaint.[106]
The Sheriff’s Office already has a policy stating that complaints against the IIU Commander are
to be forwarded directly to the Sheriff, who must appoint non-IIU personnel to investigate.107
The Sheriff’s Office should now establish a policy regarding allegations against the Sheriff and
104

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Standards and Guidelines for
Internal Affairs: Recommendations from a Community of Practice (2008), at 32,
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5498b74ce4b01fe317ef2575/t/54affb83e4b066a5a28ad527/14208193317
14/cops-p164-pub.pdf (accessed May 23, 2017).
105
Standards and Guidelines for Internal Affairs: Recommendations from a Community of Practice (2008), at 27.
106
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, and the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, Building Trust between the Police and the Citizens They Serve: An Internal Affairs Promising
Practices Guide for Local Law Enforcement (2009), at 19, http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/buildingtrust.pdf
(accessed May 23, 2017).
107
GOM 3.03.060.

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 19 of 20

other senior command staff as recommended by the above-cited Justice Department reports.
The new policy should require appointment of an external, independent authority to
investigate serious complaints against the Sheriff or other senior command staff. The external
official should have appropriate expertise and jurisdiction to investigate the specific elements
of the alleged misconduct.
2. The Sheriff’s Office should clarify its rules and procedures to ensure that review and
investigation of all complaints against Sheriff’s Office employees are documented
through BlueTeam with appropriate security classifications.
The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs states that internal affairs units should
“require[] the documentation and investigation of all complaints of misconduct or illegal
behavior against the agency or its members.”108 Sheriff Urquhart has directed that, “every
complaint will be reported and tracked”. (Emphasis in original.)109
At the Sheriff’s Office, complaint reporting and tracking occurs through IAPro and the BlueTeam
portal. Yet, Sheriff Urquhart has directed that at least several complaints not be logged, in
addition to the complaint at issue here.110 We are mindful of Sheriff Urquhart’s legitimate
desire to minimize the damage to organizational cohesion, effectiveness, and morale that
rumors can cause. But we believe a perception that senior leaders in an organization do not
hold themselves to the same standards that apply to lower-ranked employees can also damage
cohesion, effectiveness, and morale.
We therefore recommend that the Sheriff’s Office clarify its rules and procedures to ensure
that review, including of Non-Investigated Matters and Supervisor Action Logs, and
investigation of all complaints, is documented in IAPro directly or through BlueTeam, with
proper security classifications to minimize the risk of inappropriate access. We are mindful that
a delay in logging allegations through BlueTeam may be necessary, in rare cases, to preserve
the integrity of internal investigations.

108

Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, Law Enforcement Accreditation Standards (July 2016), at
34, http://www.waspc.org/assets/ProfessionalServices/2016%20accreditation%20standards.pdf (accessed May 24,
2017).
109
King County Sheriff’s Office, Internal Investigations Unit, 2014 Annual Report,
http://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/safety/sheriff/internal-investigations-unit/2014-kcso-iiu-annualreport.ashx?la=en (accessed May 24, 2017).
110
Urquhart email to Stier, April 15, 2017.

 Findings & Recommendations
Ombudsman Case # 2017-00201
August 8, 2017
Page 20 of 20

CONCLUSION
Sheriff Urquhart and IIU did not follow the Sheriff’s Office’s own policies and procedures when
they failed to investigate the complainant’s allegations against Sheriff Urquhart, or to seek an
external, independent investigation by a state or local law enforcement agency. Sheriff
Urquhart and his subordinates in IIU also did not follow Sheriff’s Office policies and procedures
when Sheriff Urquhart directed Captain Anderson not to document the complainant’s
allegations.
Sheriff Urquhart’s and IIU’s conflicts of interest, paired with their decisions not to follow
policies and procedures, lead to an appearance that they sought to prevent proper scrutiny of
the complainant’s allegations. Moving forward, acceptance and implementation of the
recommendations offered in this report can help to enhance public confidence in the Sheriff’s
Office and its leadership.
The Ombudsman’s Office appreciates the cooperation of Sheriff Urquhart and all other
witnesses in this investigation.