Navigation
User login
Who's online
Olympia Police Department versus Scott Yoos
It looks like a mismatch at first glance. And of course, OPD won the first round with a reported body slam to the pavement. But this could turn out to be a long match.
You can read the background information here at Olyblog by searching under Yoos.
Wrinkles: A quick review of the Olympia Police Guild contract with the City of Olympia reveals the following interesting items:
Page 26
ARTICLE 22 - DASH-MOUNTED VIDEO SYSTEMS
To enhance the ability oflaw enforcement personnel to accurately document events, conditions, and statements made during traffic stops, arrests, critical incidents and other related contacts dash-mounted video and audio systems will be installed in all patrol vehicles. It is further agreed that the labor-management committee will be responsible for writing the specific department policy that will govern the use, timing, recording, records retention and destruction ofsuch recordings. The video system shall not record at all times when the patrol vehicle is in use, but shall be in operation as dermed by the department policy for the purposes described above. Officers shall not be required to wear or carry a remote microphone at any time. Officers will be allowed to view any such video recordings before making any written or recorded statements and may view the recordings while
writing reports related to the recordings.
That's an interesting bit. Too bad it did not appear to be in place to "capture" the first round of OPD v. Yoos.
The employee bill of rights that begins on Page 36 of this document lays out some very generous protections for the employee (police officer) who is under investigation of any wrongdoing. You can read these if you want to outraged about the potential for lack of accountability.
And in the unlikely instance of a complaint going anywhere, the evidence disappears per the terms of the contract as show below:
Page 36:
(c) Any complaint that is. not sustained will be retained no longer than the.current
year plus three years, unless otherwise required by law. Any sustained violation of City Policy or the Police Department General Orders, not listed below, resulting in a verbal, written warning or suspension of 5 days or less will be retained no longer than the current year plus three years, unless otherwise required by law. Any sustained complaint of criminal law violations, City administrative Guidelines .pertaining to harassment, substance abuse, workplace violence or the Police Department's policy regarding truthfulness or a single suspension of more that 5 days may be retained indefinitely. Removal of any item will be requested by the employee.
(d) The Employer will promptly notify an employee upon receipt o( a public disclosure request for information in the employee's personnel file. The Employer will also provide at least three (3) business days notice before releasing any requested documents. The Employer will allow the employee and the ,Guild the opportunity to legally object to unwarranted disclosures.
The new contract was signed on April 26, 2011 and is in effect through December 31, 2012.
- Mike's blog
- Login or register to post comments
OlyWA Twitter Hashtag
These are photos or video tagged with Olympia and Washington on Flickr
OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington.
OlyBlog.net
OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.
If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.
Get Firefox
Comments
A lot of work was done over
True Statements
We are not proud of you.
"I...I...I was right, huh? You DO love Big Brother!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdyKJ1xXph8
"Way to go, man!"
A union of the oppressed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS5nP0F8sXI
Processes, due and otherwise
Everyone has the right to refuse to say anything when questioned by the police. Police officers have this right substantially curbed if they wish to remain employed, however; they must give their accounts to their managers or risk being fired for cause. The exception arises if police officers are involved in a "critical incident" such as engaging in serious felonies, causing the loss of life, or being involved in a death of a prisoner while they are in custody, etc. In that case, management CANNOT ask them anything about the case for two full days.
You read that right. If a cop is involved in a death, they don't get asked about it until they have had a chance to sleep on it.
I think that is certainly a process, but it seems to me it's a little more than what is due.
Imagine that Drew is wrong again
it's not five days but Drew being wrong is nothing new.....what is interesting is Drew apparently knows more than the psychologists that have developed as a timeline for debrief and investigatory interviews.....but why let science interfere with the persecution of the men and women who protect you.
OOPs
Yeah, you're right - Appendix D Part 2 specifies 48 hours, not five days. Five days was what the officers involved in Jose Ramirez Jimenez' death were granted. Forty Eight Hours is a minimum. More time can be and is granted in some cases. And of course, the officer can voluntarily waive the 48 hour minimum.
The day will one day come, I am sure, when you advocate that criminal suspects be given 48 hours to come up with a story rather than answer immediate questions on the scene. But on that day, we both know that Satan will be ice skating to work. Be real.
Are you not paying attention to your own words?
The officers get this time because they are mandated to talk. Civilians under investigation can remain silent. Completely different animal.
Important point there
You're certainly right that officers have to speak up to remain employed, but that does not preclude the officer's remaining silent at the risk of being let go / fired / being treated like everyone else. You are at least clear in that you imply that it IS a double standard.
The core of what we see "on this side of the fence" is that police officers (at worst) lie to themselves and others about what they do, and (at best) suffer confirmation bias which removes some (but not all) of the culpability for that lying, and then get supported in that position by being investigated by people who are essentially assuming the officer in question is a 'good guy' who should not be treated like we are treated when we are accused / suspected of a criminal act.
We get that officers have to make 'hard choices,' we just see a lot of those choices having more to do with the political or economic nature of the person they are interacting with, and we reject the resulting abuse that this excuses.
Some of us also reject the nature of the system which Police are undoubtedly trying to uphold and protect, and we don't see that as a system which abhors violence, coercion, or exploitation. Quite the opposite. Police tend to favor the logic of a system which destroys most people in favor of a few powerful persons and moneyed interests.
Ogive is exactly right. If
Ogive is exactly right. If you want a the clearest memory description possible from an officer after a high intensity scenario/near death/deadly shooting then you will have to wait. It's scientifically proven that the most effective mining of the memory takes place after several nights sleep. The question is 'When is the right time to question an officer after a shooting?' The answer is very simply, 'When the officer is ready to answer the questions'. It is also fact that officers react in a more positive manner to a cognitive interview rather than the more aggressive techniques used in straight criminal investigations.
http://www.forcescience.org/articles/Memory&TheLaw.pdf
This one just because it's an interesting read and says better what I have been trying to articulate...
http://www.forcescience.org/articles/mentalchronometry.pdf
Revealing use of language
"It is also fact that officers react in a more positive manner to a cognitive interview rather than the more aggressive techniques used in straight criminal investigations."
John, Wilson, the core of my critique here is that there seem to be two standards. Something which both of you essentially either minimize, or endorse.
Why would an officer involved in a shooting NOT be subject to a "straight" criminal investigation? Are some presumed to be more innocent than others, or are some presumed more guilty?
Neither. Officers hold a
Neither. Officers hold a unique position under the law. Communities hire them, train them, and arm them. Then they put them in a marked car and tell them to drive around town and enforce the laws which have been passed by the state legislature, county council, and city council. By the nature of the job they are placed in many highly stressful and dynamic scenario's. Sometimes during those scenario's people get hurt or die. So yes, they are different. They are placed into these positions, and the law recognizes that. If the actions are determined to be criminal than a criminal investigation will be launched. Just like Ogive said, Officers are compelled by oath to say what happened, citizens are not, they can clam up. That is why it is different. Without that difference in the law the job would be impossible to do, no one in their right mind would do it. So there is a different standard, and I, along with State, and Federal law, endorse it.
As far as the interviewing techniques. It's just fact that Officers dont respond well to aggressive interviews by other cops, especially if they believe they have not done anything wrong. More facts come out with different interviewing styles.
Community?
Let's be clear, the Community does NOT hire police officers or even Deputies.
We might at least elect the Sheriff, but we don't even elect the City Manager who hires the Police Chief, and the City Council which we do elect has no direct power to discipline, fire, examine or hire police officers of any rank.
To be even more clear, those officers who are hired by the Police Chief (and Sheriff) do not enforce the laws which were passed by the Legislative bodies at each level of our government. They enforce some of those laws, and a few other laws that they frankly make up or misinterpret. I can't give you specific numbers of the times I have read a ticket which charged a person with a law citation which does not seem to apply to their "crime." I only know that it is a cliche in my experience... I've seen it so many times it just does not surprise me anymore. Last week the Mayor and City Manager were caught by surprise because a group of artists were complaining about the Busking laws. The law hadn't changed recently, but the practice of the OPD to cite that regulation as a reason to contact and ticket travellers in Olympia had changed. (Probably because the Rainbow Gathering is coming up and this is a common way that Travellers make cash to get there.)
Of course, the law recognizes the difference. That was the point I was making so thanks for agreeing at least to the reality of the situation in that aspect.
"Officers don't respond well to aggressive interviews..." Uhm, sure. Anyone you know who does?
To answer your question,
To answer your question, yes. People who commit crimes against children or in cases of elder abuse react very well to aggressive interviews. It is also common for homicide suspects to react in a beneficial way (as far as facts) to an aggressive interview. It plays largely off of guilt.
So your exception fails, then
If the officer is accused of causing a wrongful death, or was alone when he caused a death, or is accused of raping a woman he met the month before, your logic argues that he SHOULD be subjected to aggressive questioning. Or maybe you're implying that he's not going to respond well to that because he's not likely to feel guilty about it even if he really did it. Either way, it seems that it makes little sense (beyond simple entitlement) to treat an officer accused of a crime any differently simply because he's a cop. Seems that it would have more to do with how the investigator wants to work the case.
I will say though. The
I will say though. The scenario that some people are getting wrapped up around, if it went down as described, is but a blip on the radar screen of life. If I were standing on the other side of this constant drum beat of a debate I would have chosen a much different battle.
Dogs will bark but the caravan moves on.
Normalizing violence
Scott's case is in no way worse than average. It's normal, everyday stuff. That is precisely why it is so horrible.
Accountability
Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Karl Rove. Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, military personnel murdering innocent civilians in Afghanistan. Police officers in New York City shooting an unarmed civilian with a cell phone so many times they had to stop to reload. A shoplifter dead after being 'tazed' by Olympia officers. A mute grabbed off his bike and pushed to the pavement in "pain restraints" by a 200 pound officer who enjoyed it - for throwing trash in a dumpster. A woman forced to strip in front of male officers (against the very law you say they are sworn to uphold).
Just a few individuals and instances that spring to mind. As we have heard for years, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Our job as citizens is to keep the power in check. You do your job, we'll do ours.
How do you know he enjoyed
How do you know he enjoyed it? Ask yourself a few questions before making a wild statement like that.
Do I know the Officer?
Was I there?
Do I know the scenario that led up to it?
Also I was just talking about what the law says, and the way the standards are applied. I'm not going to argue individual cases in this forum, it's useless. Neither of us are going to change each others minds. I am just trying to lend a different perspective to a subject I'm an expert in.
Scott told us
I have from Scott his story, of the officers making snide comments and being lighthearted about what they were doing to Scott. I have met Wilson, the cop who arrested Scott, and he is snide and condecending to me when he interacts with me in public. I've also met Costello, the officer who threw Scott to the ground, and he's a little less likely to be snippy verbally, but was chuckling about this arrest at the time (again, it's Scott's story here which I rely on. I know Scott and it's my experience that he has a lot of integrity around factual issues.)
The scenario which led to this is a dumpster was being protected by the Olympia Police Department (per the Chief's remarks in the Olympian) at the expense of a man who was wearing a bright yellow reflective bike jacket and was standing next to the dumpster. (per the Police Reports)
Scott was trying to ask if he could leave and was being 'non-answered' in the way that cops typically do (to control the conversation). Eventually the cops just attacked him, as so often happens when they don't get immediate obiesance.
But you're not going to argue any individual case, because that would not allow you to cloak any of this "expertise" in the language of obfuscation and minimized descriptions of routine violence.
Just what is your training, now that you've claimed to have special expertise?
I was stopped
Right in front of the same site a few weeks ago very early in the morning. I was watching an arrest at the corner of Blvd across the way and a OPD cruiser passed by my stationary position on bicycle (properly attired and lite) and then whipped-around 180 & threw on his patrol spot even though I was illuminated by street lamps.
The officer was very confrontational when I did not yield ID or explanation why I was at the location 'after the business was closed' -his stated reason for probable suspicion. I demanded the specific reason I was being interacted with and the officer had enough where-with-all to slow-his-roll and ask if I was OK or needed assistance or had witnessed suspicious activity. At that point, the interaction went OK, but I was surprised at the intital attitude & posture.
Local police need to relax and realize that folks care about the neighborhood and not everyone out late is a suspect
/semper v. indeed
Glad you're safe
It's often the case that cops use the aggressive / accusing tone to elicit guilty admissions / mannerisms. When this is met with a firm tone and a reasonable knowledge of one's rights, violence can be averted. A lot of that positive outcome can be the officer's recognition that knowing your rights is likely evidence of having money and education. This does not always work.
Payback is a (***ch)
OLYMPIA – Scott Yoos, the disabled man whose arrest in June drew criticism from local activists, will be charged with felony assault on a police officer, a Thurston County deputy prosecutor said Monday.
The charge will probably be filed today in Thurston Superior Court, said Andrew Toynbee, the county’s chief criminal deputy prosecutor. He said the charge was related to Yoos’ interaction with Olympia police Sgt. Paul Johnson.
Yoos, 45, kicked Johnson in his upper leg as Yoos was being led to a police car during his June 1 arrest, according to a police report.
Also on Monday, City Prosecutor Paul Wohl dropped misdemeanor charges of criminal trespass and obstructing justice against Yoos in Olympia Municipal Court. Yoos had pleaded not guilty to those charges.
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/08/02/1746584/mute-man-to-face-felony-charge.html
In these budget-tight times
In these budget tight times, this is what our tax dollars are paying for? Trespassing charges for disposing a tissue into a dumpster? By a local disabled citizen known to be harmless by the police dept? Are they kidding us? Now, full felony charges at taxpayers expense? The good news for our community is that at least we have a whole lot of room for budget reduction around here to eliminate many costly but spurious prosecutions, and obvious overstaffing of police.
Priorities
The posecution of Scott Yoos is in line with a long series of politically targeted prosecutions of those who "made a stink" rather than going along with a lesser charge. In this case, it is interesting that the decision was made only on the Friday prior to Scott's hearing on Monday, so that he would a) show up to court and b) only get the bad news later, after announcing to his supporters that he had been vindicated. It seems to me that the charges (if they were taken at all seriously) would have started out at assault and would have been in Criminal court from the beginning. The police think they are about 5 or 6 persons short, and are likely to cut another 4 positions rather than fill them. But that won't change this pattern, it will likely get worse before it improves.