By Jim Cline and Abagail Klonsinski
In King County, Arbitrator Khoury sustained the grievance of a law enforcement officer in part, holding there had been failures on both sides, but that termination was not supported when one of the factors used to escalate discipline violated the principle of double jeopardy.
In 2019, the Officer had served in law enforcement for 22 years and recently transitioned to the plainclothes officer unit. A BOLO was issued for a suspect, known to have reacted violently towards law enforcement in the past, driving a stolen Ford Raptor. Earlier that day, another deputy approached the BOLO suspect, and the suspect fled the scene by using the Raptor to push the deputy’s car out of the way.
The Officer and another detective spotted the stolen Raptor stopped on the side of the road. Despite a well-known department policy that plainclothes deputies should wait for marked officers to effectuate arrests and knowledge there were additional marked units close by, the Officer engaged with the suspect by parking at an angle in front of the stolen Raptor. The situation escalated, ultimately resulting in the officers’ use of their firearms and the suspect was killed.
In reviewing the situation, the officers’ use of deadly measures was found to be justified. However, the Officer came under scrutiny for failing to use de-escalation measures. The Officer’s tactical decisions were reviewed by King County and its Sheriff’s Office (“KCSO”) and the Undersheriff recommended in a Loudermill Notice that the officer be transferred from the plainclothes unit and receive additional de-escalation training. However, the Sheriff decided to terminate the officer, which the Guild timely appealed.
The Union argued there was no evidence the Officer’s conduct fell below any clearly delineated standards and any questionable tactical decisions should be addressed with training. The Sheriff’s decision to terminate was improper because it cited the Officer’s failure to don a marked police vest as a reason for his termination, even though he had already received a written reprimand for that act.
King County argued that the Officer had notice of potential discipline for performing at a level significantly below the work group standards, including failing to use de-escalation tactics when situations allowed. They further argued that the Officer exaggerated the circumstances, and that there were instances he could have engaged in de-escalation tactics but failed to do so.
Arbitrator Khoury found that the Officer failed to use de-escalation tactics, which permitted the Sheriff to hold the Officer’s actions fell below the unit’s work standard. However, the Sheriff wrongly used the Officer’s failure to wear a marked vest as a reason to escalate recommendations to termination, as the Officer had already been disciplined for that action. This was a violation of double jeopardy. Further, the Arbitrator found responsibility from the Department for sending mixed messages about how to approach arresting suspects. Arbitrator Khoury ordered the Officer to be reinstated without backpay, transferred out of the plainclothes unit, and assigned additional de-escalation trainings.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Just Cause and Arbitration of Discipline and Discharge**
