Memorandum Date: December 1, 2017 To: Chief Robin Fenton! Via: Direct From: — Major Noel Fryberger 7 te. Re: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION I1U2017- 150 Accused Employee(s)/Allegation(s)/Finding(s): Deputy Rowe, Richard C. #69786 GOM 3.00.015 2(d) Excessive of Unnecessary Use of Force UNFOUNDED GOM 3.00.015 2() Courtesy SUSTAINED GOM 3.00.015 2(k) Conduct Unbecoming SUSTAINED GOM 4.00.010 2 Identification as a Sheriff's Office Member SUSTAINED GOM 3.00.020 3 Appropriate Use of Authority UNFOUNDED Disciplinary Recommendation : 10 Days Suspension / Training Summary: Deputy Rowe stopped a motorcyclist (Alex Randall), pointed his issued weapon at him and swore at him. This was captured on video and later shared on YouTube by Randall Analysis: ' have reviewed the documents and files associated with this incident within |APRO. | found the investigation to be complete. In order to give context to these findings, | transcribed the first 1 minute and 24 seconds of the contact between Rowe and Randall. They are attached. Per the video, Det. Rowe does not identify himself as “with the King County Sherif’s Office" until approximately 1 minute into the contact. There is approximately 1 second on the video where you can see that Det. Rowe has a KCSO badge clipped to his right pants pocket; however, it is not visible because of the position that Det. Rowe is standing in when he begins speaking to Randall ESATA CGS Fron! Wij Roa yor, FINOWIGE ANG RECOMMENDATION WUZOTT Teo, T2RTAT Page aSUpon contact with Randall, Det. Rowe almost immediately begins using profanity. When the complainant asks him what he is doing, Rowe responds’What do you mean what am | doing? You're fucking driving recklessly.” It appears as though Rowe touches Randall in the chest area with his left hand, which appears to be quick “risk” of Randall's front sweatshirt area for weapons. Rowe then tells the complainant several times (at least 6) to take his ID out and threatens to "dump" him if he moves the bike. The complainant asks Rowe if he can turn the bike off and take off his helmet, to which Rowe responds, "Take your fucking ID out.” Rowe eventually reached into Randall's front pocket removed his wallet — obviously without Randall's consent and while still holding Randall at gunpoint. Randall clearly states “That's my wallet”. | made the following observations and found additional violations of GOM §,00.055 Searches: Rowe was not performing a community caretaking function Rowe did not have consent to search Randall Randall was not under arrest, so the search was not custodial. Exigent circumstances did not exist This was not an inventory search of Randall's person, AAt this point, this did not appear to be another “pat down". Rowe was clearly after Randall's wallet/D. Although a cursory search for weapons is appropriate in a Terry Stop incident, an intrusive search of a person for the purpose of obtaining their identification is not. Indeed, Det. Rowe was contacting Randall for a criminal traffic violation however | do not believe that Randall was “under arrest’ when the wallev/ID was taken, Randall was certainly being detained, as was appropriate. At no point did Detective Rowe actually place Randall under arrest. Detective Rowe later did advise Randall that Reckless Driving was an offense for which Randall could be arrested. Det. Rowe claimed in his statement that upon his approach to contact Randall, he saw Randall look in the motorcycle rear-view mirror, lean back and drop his hands to his waist area. Det. Rowe stated that he thought this was an indicator that Randall had seen him and had a weapon. Det. Rowe stated that he did not draw his weapon until he saw these movements by Randall From examining the video, Detective Rowe contacts Randall approximately 6 seconds after activating his vehicles emergency equipment You can clearly see Detective Rowe's vehicle pull up behind Randall in the reflection af the vehicle in front of Randall, It appears as though Randall notices the flashing lights in the reflection and then looks into the right rear view mirror of his motorcycle. As Randall leans forward to look into the right rear view mirror, you can clearly see in the left-hand motorcycle mirror Rowe approaching Randall with his weapon already out. ‘This is easily visible when observing the video frame by frame and shows that Detective Rowe's actions on the video do not appear to be consistent with his statement. Per witness statements, Det, Rowe had his weapon out immediately upon getting out of his vehicle. This was prior to Randall looking into the rear view mirror. The video appears to confirm this. GOM 6.00.030 2 states: “Firearms shall not be drawn or pointed unless a member has reason to believe that their use may be required." RESORTTO GRA, Fron Nol Fister, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION NUBOHT: 150, TDF Page FaleRowe stated that he believed thal Randall possibly had a weapon although he still asked Randall numerous times to reach into that same area to retrieve his ID. During the entire initial contact, Det. Rowe had Randall at gunpoint. Rowe claimed in his statement that he believed he was at the “low-ready” position; however, | did not interpret his handling of his firearm as being in the low-ready. It appeared as though he was purposely pointing his weapon in Randall's and passing motorist’s direction, Per his statement, Rowe does not remember pointing his firearm directly at Randall. This is poor firearm handling and is an obvious training issue for Rowe. After Rowe removed Randall's 1D, he re-holstered his weapon The total time for the traffic stop on North Radio was almost exactly 4 minutes. | viewed the full version of the video and discovered that the total time from when Randall was first contacted to the time that Deputy Rowe got back into his vehicle at the second location was § minutes and 43 seconds. The loss of approximately 2 minutes when compared to the radio recording coincides with Det. Rowe's statement that he did not initially go out on radio when he first made the traffic stop. Allegation 1 - Excessive or Unnecessary Use of Force Because no actual physical force was used, | find that the allegation of Excessive or Unnecessary Use of Force to be UNFOUNDED. Understandably, Randall felt that having a weapon pointed at him constituted force. Allegation 2 - Courtesy Due to the profanity and threats made by Det. Rowe, | find the courtesy allegation to be SUSTAINED. Allegation 3 - Conduct Unbecoming While not listed on the follow-up report, | find that Det. Rowe also in violation of GOM 3.00.015 2(k), Conduct Unbecoming, specifically Conduct Unbecoming: means behavior that generally tends to: 1 Diminish respect for the Sheriff's Office or member 1 Diminish confidence in the operation of the Sheriff's Office In my opinion, had there been no video of this incident, any complaint from Randall would likely have been non-sustained. Detective Houck demonstrated within his follow-up that Randall's credibility is in question. Randall's crecibilty in this specific allegation is moot however, as the finding for this allegation is based solely upon the behavior of Det. Rowe within video, His overreaction to this incident, the use of profanity, threats, poor firearm handling and the ensuing public outery significantly diminished respect for the Sherif's Office or member and diminished public confidence in the operation of the Sheriff's Office. | find this additional allegation to be SUSTAINED. Allegation 4 - Identification as a Sheriff's Office Member Detective Rowe did not identify himself as “the police" until approximately 30 seconds into the contact and only after Randall asked him why he was pointing a gun at him. Approximately 20 seconds later, Det. Rowe clarified and stated that he was ‘with the king County Sheriff's Office”. A mitigating factor could be that Det. Rowe was overwhelmed and unable to mentally process the situation until he was already committed and an active participant. Detective Rowe stated that upon making the traffic stop, he suddenly realized that he did not have the necessary equipment to conduct a safe stop. In addition he claimed that he believed Randall to be armed The GOM states: 4.00.010 IDENTIFICATION AS A SHERIFF'S OFFICE MEMBER: 12/14 1, When wearing the authorized uniform, the uniform itself is sufficient to identify its wearer as a King Tay rene Najor Nel Fivbargr, FROWGS AND RECOMMENDATION WUBDIT- 10, TOUR Pose Sore FesoRCounty Sheriff's deputy 2. When not wearing the authorized uniform and when taking police action, acceptable identification is the authorized badge and identification card. 3. All members shall provide their names and serial numbers, upon citizen request, unless circumstances surrounding the request might tend to hinder, obstruct, or endanger the member(s) during the performance of his/her duties. Det. Rowe did have a clip-on badge affixed to his right leg; however, his stance once he was contacting Randall likely prevented Randall from readily seeing it. At the same time, its ikely that Randall concluded that Det. Rowe was associated with law enforcement simply by fact that Rowe's vehicle had the emergency lighting activated and Randall was being held at gunpoint. | do not feel that the assumption that Randall should have known mitigates the necessity for a police officer to identify them self early in a contact such as this. The KCSO Detective SOP, section IX (B) states: Detectives shall have body armor accessible at all times in accordance with GOM 7.04.015. They shall also have an identifying piece of outerwear available at all times. A neck badge or clip on badge is insufficient for identification at in-progress incidents where identification is vital. Detective Rowe did not have any identifying outerwear. Ironically, he was on his way to the uniform vendor to acquire the required equipment when this incident occurred, Despite these mitigating factors, | find that a reasonable Police Officer would easily recognize the importance of identifying themselves early, therefore | find the allegation of failing to identify himself as a Sheriff's Office member to be SUSTAINED. Allegation 5 — Appropriate Use of Authority Detective Rowe had the legal authority to stop and detain Randall, believing that Randall had committed a criminal traffic offense. To make a traffic stop in a situation such as this would be appropriate, therefore | find the allegation of Appropriate Use of Authority to be UNFOUNDED. Conclusion Per GOM 6.00.05 Use of Force Policy Statement: “Any use of force by Sheriff Office members must be objectively reasonable: The reasonableness of a particular use of force is based on the totality of circumstances known by the officer at the time of the use of force and weighs the actions of the officer against the rights of the subject, in light of the circumstances surrounding the event. It must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scone, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” “The assessment of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -about tie amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." “The reasonableness inquiry in an excessive-torce case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and cireumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” This policy statement is a direct reflection of Graham v. Conner and addresses the reasonableness of force used. As stated earlier, this incident does not fit neatly into GOM section 6.00.000 because no physical force was actually used, however Detective Rowe escalated the incident by introducing his firearm and beginning the contact with threats and profanity. In reviewing this incident, | did not find Detective Rowe's actions to be reasonable. Thousands of Police Officers make thousands of traffic Reson TORS Fic jr Nal Fybeigr, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION WOOT 10, 12017 Pagersstops daily. Some of those stops may warrant an armed approach to the violator, but the majority of them do not. It is not commen to contact a run of the mill traffic violator at gunpoint Detective Rowe unnecessarily escalated this traffic contact by: 4, Almost immediately drawing his firearm 2. Using profanity upon initial contact 3. Threatening to “dump” Randal (This could have been construed by Randal as either being pushed down or shot) 4, Failing to identify himself as a Police Officer until after Randall was searched 5, Performing a questionable search of Randall All of these violations by Detective Rowe stemmed from a traffic stop for what Detective Rowe perceived to be Reckless Driving. SAL2014-156 “Mr. Aziz related that Deputy Rich Rowe made contact with him at the driver's side window and seemed to be angry at him, stating that something about driving too fast.” NINZ013-157 The incident reported an officer complaint in or near the city of Snohomish. The complainant was upset at the way a SeaTac officer handled her traffic contact. The complainant was closed as a NIM, however the original complaint stated in part: “Ihonestly thought it was somebody who had road rage! When we got to the end of the road, he turned his lights on and putled me over. | rolled my window down, he asked for my information and | fold him that he really scared me, He started YELLING at me for my driving skills.” The above NIM and SAL are not listed within these findings for the purpose of progressive discipline. They are listed to show that Detective Rowe has had opportunities to learn from the publics’ past complaints regarding misconduct on traffic stops. His behavior in this specific incident is similar to his past documented incidents There is no formal training for Detectives on how to conduet traffic stops when in an unmarked capacity. Instead, supervisors rely on employees past experience and common sense. Detective Rowe stated in his interview that he saw the "Go-Pro” on Randall's helmet as he was making his approach to Randall. Despite the possibility having the contact memorialized on film, Rowe began the contact with threats and profanity Itis not unreasonable to expect employees to treat traffic violators with dignity and respect. Detective Rowe is an 18 year veteran and should have known to act in a more polite and reasonable manner. RESO RTE (GH Frans Major Woa Fryerge, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION W217 180,120 Pagesare