17-19 Use of Force, Fitness For Duty (Exonerated)

Pullman Police Department
Complete Details For 17-19

Major Complaint
Date Complaint Taken: 7/10/2017 Date Occurred: 6/28/2017 Racial: No Case No.: 17-P06674 No. Type: IN PERSON
Category: Formal Internal Complaint Type: MAJOR Occured: On Duty
Location Occurred: LYBECKER AT STADIUM WAY District/Area: Not Stated

Video Available
Complainant: JENKINS / TENNANT Sex: Race:
Yes
Complainant's Address: Not Stated ?? Unk Home Phone: Body Camera
Cell Phone: Business Phone: Email Address:
Assigned: SERGEANT SOREM Date Assigned: 7/10/2017 Days Case Due In: Date Due:
Current Case Disposition: EXONERATED Date Completed: How Complaint Was Reported: IN PERSON
Complainant Satisfaction: Satisfaction Comments:
Summary: Review of use of force (LVNR), fitness for duty, video access, injury reporting, and days off related to case 17-P06674.
Type Of Complaint Description Complaint Disposition

Complaint #: 1 CHAPTER 10 (2.2) USE OF FORCE USE OF FORCE - GENERAL EXONERATED
Complaint #: 2 CHAPTER 5 (2.6) REPORTING INJURIES REPORTING INJURIES EXONERATED
Complaint #: 3 DIRECTIVE 446: MAV RECORDINGS & PROHIBITED USE EXONERATED
Name ID Number Rank Division Shift Officer Disposition On Alert Camera

Officer #: 1 CROW, MICHAEL JAMES SENIOR POLICE OFC PATROL Not Stated EXONERATED Yes Yes
Witness #: 1 DILLON, TEAYANA Type Witness: PPD EMPLOYEE
Address: Not Stated Contacted
H Phone: B Phone: C Phone:
Witness Notes:
Witness #: 2 DOW, TODD Type Witness: PPD EMPLOYEE
Witness Notes:
Witness #: 3 ENGLE, CHRIS Type Witness: PPD EMPLOYEE
Witness Notes:
L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:22:51 PM Page 1 of13


Major Complaint
Witness #: 4 HARGRAVES, DAN Type Witness: PPD EMPLOYEE
Witness Notes:
Narrative: Was the use of the LVNR on subject 1 - Right to Privacy necessary?
Given the amount of "panting", is there a fitness for duty aspect to Officer Crow's performance?
Was there a valid reason to download the video of the incident and burn it to a CD?
Was Officer Crow injured during the incident, and if so, why was no incident report filled out?
Why did Officer Crow take the following day as a vacation day off when he complained to Sgt. Hargraves that his "whole body hurt" (or
words to that effect), and he had told Sgt. Sorem that he thought he had a "bone bruise" as a result of the incident?
PULLMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

INTERNAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
Complaint Origin: IA # 17-19
( ) Citizen ( x ) Supervisor ( ) Police Employee ( ) Civil Claim

( ) Other (specify)
Date Complaint/Allegation Received by the Department:

07-10-17
Manner Complaint/Allegation Received:
(x ) In Person ( ) By Telephone ( ) Written ( ) E-mail

( ) Other (specify)
Member Receiving Complaint:

(Name and Rank or Title)
Gary Jenkins, Chief
Chris Tennant, Commander
Date of Alleged Incident:

06-28-17 and 06-29-17
Location of Alleged Incident:

Lybecker at Stadium Way, PPD
Name, Address and Phone Number of Person(s) Making Allegations:

Chief Gary Jenkins
Commander Chris Tennant
Nature of Complaint/Allegations:
Was the use of the LVNR on 1 - Right to Privacy necessary?


Major Complaint
Given the amount of “panting” (as if after exertion), is there a fitness for duty aspect to Officer Crow’s performance?
Was there a valid reason to download the video of the incident and burn it to a CD?
Was Officer Crow injured during the incident, and if so why was no incident report filled out?
Why did Officer Crow take the following day as a vacation day off when he complained to Sgt. Hargraves that his “whole body hurt” (or
words to that effect), and he had told Sgt. Sorem that he thought he had a “bone bruise” as a result of the incident?
Member(s) Against Whom Complaint is Alleged:

(Last Name, First Name, Middle Name, Position and Rank)
Crow, Michael JamesSenior Police Officer
Name and Rank of Person Assigned Investigation:

Sam Sorem, Sgt.
Date Assigned to the Investigator:

07-10-2017
Date the Investigator Made First Personal Contact with the Complaining Person(s):
07-10-17
Date Investigation Completed:

11-04-17
Witnesses:
(Full name, address and telephone numbers. If a member of the Department indicate name, rank/title.)
Todd Dow, Senior Police Officer
Teayana Dillon, Police Officer 4th class
Chris Engle, Senior Police Officer
Dan Hargraves, Sgt.
Summary of Allegations and Results of the Investigation:

(Attach all documents, notes and other material pertaining to the complaint and forward for review to proper authority).
See attached pages
Details of Investigation
On July 10, 2017 I met with Chief Jenkins and Commander Tennant. In that meeting they assigned me this investigation, specifically:
Chief Jenkins and Commander Tennant outlined four areas that they wished the investigation to address:
1.Did the use of the LVNR by Officer Crow fall under the “necessary” classification of PPD Policy?
2.In the video Officer Crow appears to be exhibiting a level of exhaustion that does not seem to coincide with the physical activity used to
apply the LVNR. Does the amount of “panting” give cause for a possible fitness for duty question?
3.Officer Crow downloaded the video and created a CD. Was this in line with policy and directives?
4.Officer Crow called me the morning of June 29, 2017. I was unavailable so he called Sgt. Hargraves and said that his body hurt and
wanted to take the day off as vacation. He later told me over the phone that he hurt and might have a “bone bruise” from this incident.
Was Officer Crow injured in the protective custody incident? If so did he fill out an injury report? If not why did he tell both Sgt. Hargraves
and me otherwise?
I began the investigation by viewing Officer Crow’s BWC video while Officer Dow verbally walked me through the incident. I watched the
video again and made the following observations:
2:00Ofc. Crow and Ofc. Dow place 1 - Right to Privacy in handcuffs without incident.


Major Complaint
2:25Crow tells Ofc. Dillon to disregard – that they are code 4.
2:45 1 - Right to Priv... begins to become uncommunicative. He is sat against the wall on the sidewalk.
His answers are mostly nonsensical.
4:15 1 - Right to Priva... gets up off the sidewalk, ignoring commands, and officers take measures to restrain him.
4:40One of the officers says “choke him out?” Ofc. Crow applies the LVNR, asking three times “Are you done?”
4:50 Ofc. Crow asks if he is out. Ofc. Dow replies “nope”.
4:54 Ofc. Crow asks again “Are you done?”
5:02Ofc. Dow says “Try it”.
5:05 1 - Right to Pri... is laid out on his back.
Ofc. Crow is out of breath, and on his portable ask medics to step it up and for Ofc. Dillon to continue to his location. Crow repeatedly tells
1 - Right to Privacy that he is alright. At 5:34 1 - Right to Priv... asks “what happened?”, “where am I?”.
6:08Ofc. Crow informs Ofc. Dillon that “he just got up and fought us”.
6:20Ofc. Crow asks 1 - Right to Priv... what kinds of drugs he was taking. He converses with a passerby who saw 1 - Right to Priv... walk on a car and
get hit, apparently by the driver of the car.
9:15 Medics arrive. Ofc. Crow still leaning on the wall, panting.
10:00Ofc. Crow is still leaning on the wall but no longer panting. There is a visible tear in his black rubber glove on his left hand in the area
of his index knuckle.
11:42Ofc. Crow asks Ofc. Engle to take his place and explains that he has a cut on his hand and needs to clean it. He then goes to his car
and washes his hands, and then returns to the scene.
I viewed Officer Engle’s video and did not see anything new although it shows the contrast between Ofc. Crow and Ofc. Dow in the
aftermath of the incident. Officer Dow does not appear to be out of breath at all. The video also shows Ofc. Crow’s left foot on 1 - Right to Privacy ’s
chest. Officer Dow said that he was monitoring 1 - Right to Privacy s breathing and could see his chest rise and fall. Below is an excerpt from an
email dated 07-07-17) from Officer Engle to Commander Tennant, expressing his concerns regarding Officer Crow’s performance:
1)Last week, Officer Crow and Officer Dow detained a naked male apparently under the influence of drugs on Stadium Way during busy
traffic. After being handcuffed, the male became uncooperative and Officer Crow ended up applying an LVNR. Officer Crow requested
backup and we responded from two blocks away. Upon arriving, I saw Officer Dow positioned at the male’s head ready to restrain him if he
resisted. Officer Crow was standing with his foot on the male’s lower chest/abdomen area while leaning against a retaining wall. I
immediately monitored the male’s breathing to make sure his chest was rising and falling normally and wasn’t being restricted by Officer
Crow’s foot. I saw Officer Crow was sweating profusely and shaking. At one point, he asked me to take over for him because he had cut
his glove and hand and needed to wash it immediately. I reluctantly agreed, but did not assume his position. I merely stood-by prepared to
intervene if necessary.
After the call, I felt compelled to point out to Officer Dillon how Officer Crow’s behavior was not ideal – that placing his foot on the male’s
chest could increase the risk of causing the male to go into respiratory arrest after the LVNR application, that that technique gained no
tactical advantage (he could still be kicked by the male and wasn’t able to control his movements any better than by using his hands at the
male’s legs), that he unnecessarily made a negative impression on numerous motorists driving by and watching (one appeared to possibly
be filming the encounter), and that the application of the LVNR in that circumstance was a relatively high level of force considering that the
male was handcuffed and merely resistive. I told her Officer Crow would have to carefully articulate the factors which justified the use of the
LVNR in his report and talked about what some of those factors might have been. Officer Dillon commented that she noticed that Officer
Crow appeared shaken after the incident in spite of it not being a high-stress encounter.
Later, at briefing, I also felt compelled to speak up when Officer Crow referred to his LVNR application as having “choked him out.” I tried to
point out the danger of confusing the terms by asking if anyone had heard of the Las Vegas Metro officer who was being charged with
manslaughter because he referred to his LVNR application as a ‘rear-naked choke’ in his report.
On 07-25-17 at about 0925 hrs I met with Officer Greg Umbright in his capacity as a defensive tactics (including LVNR) instructor. I had


Major Complaint
asked him to watch Ofc. Crow’s video and to be prepared to give me his opinion on the use of force and aftermath. He had prepared a
page of notes (attached). In summary he said that he felt that the use of the LVNR was appropriate and necessary, and within policy. He
expressed concern over the level of apparent exhaustion that Ofc. Crow was displaying after 1 - Right to Privacy had been subdued. He wonders
how much of the apparent exertion was from the physical aspect of the incident and how much might be psychological. He observes that
Officer Crow refers to 1 - Right to Privacy ’s actions as a “fight” when he (Ofc. Umbright) would classify them as “aggressive resistance”. In
reviewing the video he does not see any action that would have resulted in an injury to Officer Crow.
I met with Technology Specialist Brenden McNannay on 07-31-17 at about 1600 hrs. I asked him if it was possible that the video could
have been downloaded at a time that it was not viewable. He printed off the audit trail and examined it. He determined that Ofc. Crow
uploaded the video at 17:20:58 and that he attempted to access it six times, then added the case number, then the category. He accessed
it again at 17:53:25 and then downloaded it at 17:53:45. It is significant that none of Ofc. Crow’s accessing attempts resulted in a “buffering”
event, which it would need to do if it could be viewed. McNannay’s opinion is that the video player was most likely not working due to any
number of reasons. The audit trail is attached.
I met with Sgt. Hargraves on 08-02-17 at about 1225 hrs. The interview was recorded (disk is in folder). Sgt. Hargraves is the other
department DT instructor. He viewed the video and concluded that the use of the LVNR was appropriate and necessary. He was unsure if
it needed to go to level 3 (unconsciousness) but said that 1 - Right to Privacy needed to go to the ground. He did not want to “Monday morning
quarterback” the officers but said that there may be been other options but he was not there.
Sgt. Hargraves observed that when Ofc. Crow’s foot was on 1 - Right to Privacy ’s chest he would be concerned that Ofc. Crow could not control the
amount of pressure being exerted and that he could have dropped to one knee. Sgt. Hargraves also commented that Ofc. Crow looked
completely exhausted and that the amount of “panting” did not seem to match up with the intensity of the physical struggle. He was not
sure if the panting was due to physical exertion or psychological stress.
I asked Sgt. Hargraves what Ofc. Crow had said to him when he called him the next day (06-29-17). Sgt. Hargraves said that he could not
recall Ofc. Crow’s exact words but that he said something to the effect that his whole body hurt or ached and that he wanted to take the day
off. Sgt. Hargraves said he asked Ofc. Crow if he was calling in sick and Ofc. Crow said he wanted to take vacation instead. After
clarifying that it was okay for Ofc. Crow to get permission to take the day off from another supervisor, he granted the time off. In an email
dated 07-04-17 (attached) Sgt. Hargraves told me that “He mentioned something about his body aching because of the incident and I
specifically asked him if he was calling in sick. He said no, and said it was vacation time off”.
On the same day Ofc. Crow called Sgt. Hargraves (06-29-17), Officer Crow texted me but I did not get into contact with him until after he
had been given the day off by Sgt. Hargraves. When I did call him he gave me a rundown on the incident, and said that he might have a
“bone bruise”, but that I could disregard since he’d been in touch with Sgt. Hargraves. Officer Brian Chamberlin told me that Officer Crow
had texted him the night of the incident telling him that he had hurt his elbow.
On 08-03-17 at about 1710 hrs I interviewed Ofc. Dow. The interview was recorded (disk in folder). Officer Dow said the call came out right
after briefing and he responded without his BWC. Officer Dow said Officer Crow got there first and he approached from the other direction.
Officer Dow said that when he arrived Officer Crow had the male on the ground. He said it seemed calm at that point and Officer Crow was
talking to him. Officer Dow said that the male allowed Officer Crow to handcuff him and then Officer Crow had the suspect sit on the
sidewalk with his back against the cement retaining wall. He said the next minute the suspect “flipped on a dime” and stopped
cooperating. Officer Dow said that the male decided he did not want to be there and he got up fast enough that Officer Dow was not able to
prevent him from getting to his feet. Dow said that the guy started walking west on the sidewalk and both he and Crow were quickly on him,
with Dow being on the man’s left side and Crow being on the man’s right side.
Officer Dow said that he and Officer Crow both had the same idea – that the suspect ( 1 - Right to Priv... ) needed to be sat back down
immediately. Officer Dow said that he tried to push 1 - Right to Priva... ’s knee with his boot (from the back) but 1 - Right to Privacy ’s leg was too stiff and his
knee wouldn’t bend. Officer Dow said he might have tried an arm bar or a “figure 4” but that nothing was working. Officer Dow said he
tried taking him down forward and backwards but that 1 - Right to Privacy was too rooted. Officer Dow said that officer Crow said “choke him out”
and he tried to apply the LVNR but that he was not in a good position.
He said that Officer Crow was in a better position and was able to apply the hold. Officer Dow said that Officer Crow asked him if


Major Complaint
1 - Right to Privacy was out, and that he replied “try it”, meaning to release the hold to see if 1 - Right to Priv... was unconscious. Officer Dow said that he
may not have communicated clearly so he adjusted his language and said that he thought 1 - Right to Privacy was out. Officer Dow said they let
1 - Right to Privacy down and was unconscious. Officer Dow said that 1 - Right to Privacy was not out long and began to regain consciousness. Officer
Dow said that he went to 1 - Right to Priv... ’s head, and that Crow had his foot on the suspect’s chest, and when Officer Dillon arrived he told her
to go to the suspect’s feet.
Officer Dow said that Officer Crow had a tear in his left glove and that he said he was bleeding. Officer Dow said that Officer Crow asked
Officer Engle, who was shadowing Dillon, to step in so he could tend to his wound. Officer Dow said that Officer Engle seemed hesitant to
step in because by then 1 - Right to Privacy was being very quiet. Officer Dow said at this point he could see that Officer Crow was shaky,
breathing hard, sweating. The ambulance showed up and the crew sedated and transported him to the hospital.
Officer Dow was not critical of Crow’s boot being on 1 - Right to Priva... ’s chest, and said he was monitoring 1 - Right to Privacy ’s breathing anyway due to
the application of the LVNR. He said that Officer Crow’s apparent exhaustion could have been the result of exertion because although the
encounter was brief it was very intense. Officer Dow said that the encounter caused him some stress the next day because of not having
really good control. Officer Dow said that he works out and that Officer Crow does not , so the physical aspect for him was not that
significant, only the inability to control 1 - Right to Privacy easily. I asked Officer Dow about the torn glove and hand injury. Dow said the glove was
torn but that he did not see that the cut was bleeding, but that Officer Crow said it was. I asked if either he or Officer Crow sustained any
other injury as a result of the incident, and he said he did not think so.
I asked about Officer Crow downloading the BWC video and Officer Dow said that he was not sure how, but somehow he knew that Crow
had trouble viewing it so he downloaded the video. He also thought that he burned a CD of the video. He said that Crow was showing
other officers the video. Officer Dow said that it appeared to him that Crow was making a bigger deal out of it than he should have – turning
it into a “war story”.
Officer Dow said that he felt that the use of the LVNR was appropriate and that 1 - Right to Privacy was actively resisting and did not want to be
there and was not cooperating. He said it appeared that 1 - Right to Privacy ’s intent was to get away, not assault them. I asked if during the rest
of the shift Officer Crow made any mention of any injury or ill feelings such as anxiety, stress, or pain. Officer Dow said that he wants to
say that he thinks so, and that Officer Crow may have gone home early. Officer Dow thinks he remembers Officer Crow telling him that his
hand, or arm, or shoulder, was not right, but that he does not recall Officer Crow saying it was causing him anxiety. Officer Dow does not
recall Officer Crow saying anything about an injury report.
I checked the schedule and the radio history and saw that June 28 was a regular 9 hour day ending at 24:00 but that Ofc. Crow did go
home at 23:00. His time sheet indicated that he took one hour of vacation approved by Ofc. Dow.
On 08-14-17 at about 2245 hrs I spoke with Officer Chamberlin regarding any mention of an injury from Officer Crow. I decided to do a
formal interview and record it (CD enclosed). Officer Chamberlin said that he was not working that day but that he had received a text from
Officer Crow that night. Officer Chamberlin told me that after he got the text from Officer Crow, Officer Crow then called him and spoke to
him about the incident. I asked if he mentioned anything about being injured as a result of the incident, and Officer Chamberlin said no. I
asked about the texts, and Officer Chamberlin said not that evening. Officer Chamberlin said that he (Chamberlin) did work the following
day, the day Officer Crow called in sick (Crow actually took the day off as a vacation day per Sgt. Hargraves).
I asked Officer Chamberlin when it was that Officer Crow told him that he might be injured, and Officer Chamberlin replied that it was the
day that Crow had taken off and he worked (06-29-17). Officer Chamberlin said that Crow texted him and complained that he might have
injured his elbow. I asked if Chamberlin had seen the video and he said that he had not at that time. He said he watched the video the next
day, when Officer Crow showed it to him. I asked if Crow had pointed out any part in the video where he’d been injured and Chamberlin
said no. Officer Chamberlin said that he did not see any visible signs of injury to either of Crow’s elbows, and did that Crow did not
appear to be favoring either arm or elbow. He said that other than the text message on the 29th, Officer Crow has not mentioned being
injured as a result of this incident. He said that he has worked with Officer Crow before, and that in the past Officer Crow has shared
information regarding any injury he may have received, but that he has not done so this time.
Regarding burning the video of the BWC to CD, Officer Crow sent Commander Tennant an email on 06-28-17 at about 2259hrs advising
him that he could not get the bodycam video to play on evidence.com so he downloaded it and burned it to a disc which is in the case file.


Major Complaint
On 11-01-2017 at about 1545 hours I met with Officer Crow and his Guild Attorney Trevor Caldwell in the conference room of the Pullman
Police Department. I read Officer Crow his Garrity Admonishment and proceeded to interview him. I asked him the following questions:
1. Why was the use of the LVNR necessary, and was it necessary to go to stage 3, rendering 1 - Right to Privacy unconscious?
2.
Answer: Crow said that 1 - Right to Privacy was at first compliant but nervous because he felt 1 - Right to Priv... was displaying symptoms of Excited
Delerium (ED). He said that after 1 - Right to Privacy stood up he was out of control, and went completely rigid. Crow said that he and Dow
footsweeps, and he recalled trying wristlocks. He said these are level one techniques, and that his training is that when the technique is not
working you move up to the next level. Crow said that in stage one the LVNR is a restraint technique, and that 1 - Right to Privacy was so out of
control that stage one was not going to work. Crow said by this point he was sure that 1 - Right to Privacy was “on” something and that nothing else
was going to work. He said that the lawful purpose he was trying to accomplish was protecting “our” (Dow and Crow) lives and “his”
( 1 - Right to Priv... ) life. He pointed out that he could run out into traffic and get hit.
3.In the video of the incident you exhibit what appears to be a long period of hard breathing – longer than a recovery period from the activity
on the video would normally indicate. Is the period of hard breathing the result of physical exertion, an anxiety attack, or something else?
Answer: Crow said it was physical exertion and adrenalin dump. He said that when he has anxiety he does not breathe hard.
4.Explain the circumstances surrounding your need to download and make a cd of your incident from Evidence.com.
Answer: Crow said the first time he tried to play the video it would not play. He said he tried to “click” on the video multiple times. Crow
said he tried viewing other videos and was able to do so. Crow said he thought of trying to download the video and making a DVD of it, and
was successful in doing so. Crow said that when he was unable to play the video he was worried about losing it, and when he was able to
download it and make the DVD it was a positive thing. He did not recall sending the email to Commander Tennant regarding this action.
5.What computer station were you at when you tried to view the video?
Answer: Crow said he was in the “Fred” office using that computer work station.
6.Did you make any other copies of the video?
Answer: No.
7.Who did you show the video to and why?
Answer: Crow could not remember exactly who, but Crow said it was a good example to show people what Excited Delirium looks like and
felt that it as a super valuable training tool. Crow said he did not know if he had ever seen anything like it in his career. He knew that he
showed Shane the video because Shane had showed him a video of him (Shane) dealing with a naked guy.
8.Did you show anybody outside of the department?
Answer: No
9.Did you play the video on any device other than a PPD PC workstation computer?


Major Complaint
Answer: Crow said, No, the DVD never left this place.
10.Were you injured in the altercation with 1 - Right to Priv... ? Why did you go home early the day of the 1 - Right to Privacy incident?
Answer: I don’t believe so.
11. Why did you go home early that night?
Answer: I don’t remember going home early that night. I was probably tired and spent.
12.What did you tell Officer Dow when you asked him if you could go home early?
(I did not see the point in asking this question as Crow did not remember going home early.)
13.Why did you take the following day off?
Answer: Because my elbow hurt.
14. What did you tell Sgt. Hargraves about your physical condition when you asked for the next day off?
Answer: I told him that I thought I had hurt my elbow in that fight.
15.What did you tell me when you informed me that same day?
Answer: I think I told you the same thing.
16.Were you injured to the extent that you needed to take the following day off?
Answer: Can I preface it? My elbow did not start hurting for hours later. At the time I thought I had injured it. A couple of days later I
started having symptoms of tennis elbow, which I have had before in that arm. I was not about to claim an injury that I was not certain had
happened during that fight. I’m not about to do that.
17. Why did you describe a physical condition but then ask for the day off to be taken as vacation?
Answer: Honestly I did not know that “that” (taking the time as sick leave which would be reimburse through L & I). Crow also said that
because of his time (sick leave bank) he would rather take it as vacation than sick leave.
18.Did you fill out an injury report?
Answer: No. We then discussed that he could have filled out an injury report relating the possible injury and it’s possible cause being the
incident, and if there was doubt he could express that in the report. We discussed the torn glove and him disinfecting the area. Crow said
he thought it was a crappy glove, but said that there was no skin breakage.
Trevor Caldwell clarified that Crow did not notice the possible elbow injury until several hours after the event, and even in the subsequent


Major Complaint
day he did not associate it with the encounter with 1 - Right to Priva... .
Recommendations:
(Recommendations are made by reviewer who is person of management level rank i.e., lieutenant or support services manager).
Cmdr. Tennant’s Recommendations: (11-9-17)
1)Did the use of the LVNR by Officer Crow fall under the “necessary” classification of PPD Policy?
As to the use of force issue, PPD Policy Chapter 10 section 2.2 Authorization for the use of force reads in part, “Members shall use only the
amount of force necessary to effect the lawful purpose intended.”
While viewing the BWC footage of the LVNR applied by Officer Crow reference Case # 17-P06674, I questioned if the Level III use of that
technique (ie. Appling LVNR to the point of unconsciousness) was “necessary” since the person in question was already in handcuffs and
two officers were present. Later, backup officer Chris Engle also questioned the level of force in an email to me. I assigned Sgt. Sorem to
look into the matter as a formal internal affairs investigation.
Officers Umbright and Sgt. Dan Hargraves are the department’s use of force instructors and reviewed the report and video of this case and
both came to the conclusion that the force used by Officer Crow as reasonable and necessary given the totality of the circumstances. The
other officer present at the scene was Officer Dow, who also stated that the force used by Officer Crow was reasonable and necessary due
the strength and apparent “excited delirium” presented by the suspect.
When questioned, Officer Crow was able to give reasonable justification to his use of force for this incident.
Based on all the input of all officers involved and the Department’s use of force instructors, I am comfortable recommending a finding of
“Exonerated – the allegations occurred but were lawful and proper” as outlined in Chapter 8 Discipline Section 2.26 Dispositions of
Allegations of Misconduct.
2)In the video Officer Crow appears to be exhibiting a level of exhaustion that does not seem to coincide with the physical activity used to
As to the visual physical reaction demonstrated by Crow to this physical altercation, I will recommend a finding of “Not Sustained – there
was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegations” as outlined in Chapter 8 Discipline Section 2.26 Dispositions of Allegations of
Misconduct.
I can understand why officers find Crow’s reaction “questionable” as to his fitness for duty given the circumstances. I also find Crow’s
explanation of “physical exertion” and an “adrenalin dump” to be plausible. Especially, with the time that has elapsed since the incident, I
would recommend taking no action on this issue by itself.
3) Officer Crow downloaded the video and created a CD. Was this in line with policy and directives?
The Mobile Audio Video Policy Directive prohibits officers from “…making personal copies of recordings created while on duty” – Section
446.8(a) and “…members shall not duplicate, …except for authorized legitimate department business purposes” – section 446.8 (b). I
recommend a finding of “Exonerated – the allegations occurred but were lawful and proper” as outlined in Chapter 8 Discipline Section 2.26
Dispositions of Allegations of Misconduct.
There is sufficient evidence to show that Evidence.com failed to play the video clip when pulled up by Officer Crow on multiple occasions to


Major Complaint
support Crow’s explanation of why he burnt a copy to CD. Officer Crow’s Email to me explaining on where to find the CD for information, in
case, as the reviewer of the use of force, show that he had business intentions behind his actions, not personal motivation. In addition, his
testimony that no one outside the department viewed the copy, nor did he remove the CD from building lends credence to his intentions that
this duplication was business related, not personal.
4)Officer Crow called me (Sgt. Sorem) the morning of June 29, 2017. I was unavailable so he called Sgt. Hargraves and said that his body
hurt and wanted to take the day off as vacation. He later told me over the phone that he hurt and might have a “bone bruise” from this
incident. Was Officer Crow injured in the protective custody incident? If so did he fill out an injury report? If not why did he tell both Sgt.
Hargraves and me otherwise?
I will recommend a finding of “Not Sustained – there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegations” as outlined in Chapter 8
Discipline Section 2.26 Dispositions of Allegations of Misconduct.
Poor communication and prior history/issue of sick leave use contributed to these questions being asked. Officer Crow himself is unsure if
the minor injury he sustained (Sore elbow) was directly due to this incident or from a prior chronic condition. I recommend no action being
taken reference this particular instance.Cmdr. Tennant’s Recommendations:
Misconduct.


Major Complaint
taken reference this particular instance.Cmdr. Tennant’s Recommendations:
Misconduct.


Major Complaint
taken reference this particular instance.
----------------
I concur with Commander Tennant's assessment and conclusions.

- Chapter 10, Section 2.2: Use of Force: Exonerated
- Chapter 5, Section 2.6: Reporting Injuries: Not Sustained
- Mobile Audio Video Directive: Recordings and Prohibited Use: Exonerated
- Fitness for Duty not justified based on this incident
Gary Jenkins, Chief of Police

11/9/17
Classification of Complaint:
(Completed by Reviewer)
ACCIDENT
( ) Motor Vehicle Accident( ) Other Accident
MISCONDUCT
( ) Demeanor ( ) Harassment( ) Negligence
( ) Illegal Search( ) False Arrest( ) Excessive Force
( ) Violation of City/Department Policy( ) Crime
( ) Other:
FOR CHIEF OF POLICE ONLY
Result of Investigation:


Major Complaint
Accident:( ) Unavoidable( ) Avoidable
( ) Driver Judgement Error( ) Driver Negligence
( ) Minor Misconduct( ) Serious Misconduct
Finding Allegation of Misconduct:(X) Exonerated( ) Unfounded

( X ) Not Sustained( ) Sustained
( ) Minor Misconduct
( ) Major Misconduct
Discipline:
(X ) None
( ) Administered/Nature:
Date Administered:
Policy or Policies Violated:
( ) Prior Corrective Action of a Similar Nature
( ) This report expires on __________________________ unless misconduct of a

nature occurs.

Redaction Date: Friday, December 14, 2018 12:42:33 PM
Total Number of Redactions: 42
By Exemption:
"RCW 42.56.050 - Invasion of privacy occurs if the disclosure of information 1. would be

highly offensive to a reasonable person and 2. is not of legitimate concern to the public. "
(Right to Privacy): 42 instances
By Page:
Page 2 - "RCW 42.56.050 - Invasion of privacy occurs if the disclosure of information 1.

would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and 2. is not of legitimate concern to the
public. " (Right to Privacy): 2 instances
public. " (Right to Privacy): 1 instance
public. " (Right to Privacy): 1 instance

17-19 Use of Force, Fitness For Duty (Exonerated)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

17-19 Use of Force, Fitness For Duty (Exonerated)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Pullman Police Department

Complete Details For 17-19

Category: Formal Internal Complaint Type: MAJOR Occured: On Duty

Location Occurred: LYBECKER AT STADIUM WAY District/Area: Not Stated

Cell Phone: Business Phone: Email Address:

Type Of Complaint Description Complaint Disposition

Name ID Number Rank Division Shift Officer Disposition On Alert Camera

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:22:51 PM Page 1 of13

Complete Details For 17-19

PULLMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

Complaint Origin: IA # 17-19

( ) Citizen ( x ) Supervisor ( ) Police Employee ( ) Civil Claim

Date Complaint/Allegation Received by the Department:

Manner Complaint/Allegation Received:

(x ) In Person ( ) By Telephone ( ) Written ( ) E-mail

Member Receiving Complaint:

Date of Alleged Incident:

Location of Alleged Incident:

Name, Address and Phone Number of Person(s) Making Allegations:

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:22:51 PM Page 2 of13

Complete Details For 17-19

Member(s) Against Whom Complaint is Alleged:

Name and Rank of Person Assigned Investigation:

Date Assigned to the Investigator:

Date Investigation Completed:

Summary of Allegations and Results of the Investigation:

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:22:51 PM Page 3 of13

Complete Details For 17-19

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:22:51 PM Page 4 of13

Complete Details For 17-19

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:22:51 PM Page 5 of13

Complete Details For 17-19

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:22:51 PM Page 6 of13

Complete Details For 17-19

6.Did you make any other copies of the video?

7.Who did you show the video to and why?

8.Did you show anybody outside of the department?

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:22:51 PM Page 7 of13

Complete Details For 17-19

Answer: I don’t believe so.

11. Why did you go home early that night?

13.Why did you take the following day off?

Answer: Because my elbow hurt.

Answer: I think I told you the same thing.

18.Did you fill out an injury report?

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:22:51 PM Page 8 of13

Complete Details For 17-19

Cmdr. Tennant’s Recommendations: (11-9-17)

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:22:51 PM Page 9 of13

Complete Details For 17-19

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:22:51 PM Page 10 of13

Complete Details For 17-19

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:22:51 PM Page 11 of13

Complete Details For 17-19

I concur with Commander Tennant's assessment and conclusions.

Gary Jenkins, Chief of Police

( ) Motor Vehicle Accident( ) Other Accident

FOR CHIEF OF POLICE ONLY

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:22:51 PM Page 12 of13

Complete Details For 17-19

Finding Allegation of Misconduct:(X) Exonerated( ) Unfounded

( ) Prior Corrective Action of a Similar Nature

( ) This report expires on __________________________ unless misconduct of a