A review of Pullman Police Department internal affairs records for the past five years reveals numerous instances of previously undisclosed officer misconduct ranging from neglect of duty to alleged assault.
Officers reportedly propositioned female coworkers, snubbed a rape victim, accessed confidential case records for personal use and filed inaccurate police reports among other documented violations. In one case, authorities recommended counts of assault and malicious mischief against a Pullman officer following a drunken dispute in 2016.
Most of the officers associated with serious violations have since left the department.
Police Chief Gary Jenkins said he believes the department has a strong culture of accountability. Some law enforcement agencies struggle to maintain community trust and support. He said citizens demand high standards for officer behavior.
“A lot of people feel that police will cover for their own,” Jenkins said. “[But] we have a very high stake in ensuring that our employees conduct themselves in a way that … the public expects. It would be very counterproductive for us not to hold [our officers] accountable.”
Whitman County Watch obtained these internal affairs reports via multiple public records requests beginning in December. Police officials provided more than 800 pages of findings and supporting documents. Whitman County Watch compiled those reports into the log below and provided an advance copy of the log to officials on March 25 so they could update, challenge or comment on the listings.
Records show the department filed 93 internal affairs reports on alleged employee misconduct from 2014 through 2018. In 50 of those cases, investigators concluded the allegations were unfounded, not sustained or exonerated officers. Another 43 cases resulted in sustained findings or an officer receiving counseling from a supervisor.
Of the sustained allegations, several involved typical workplace incidents such as late or missed shifts (seven cases) and traffic collisions (six cases). Other cases resulted in more significant policy violations, including:
- Previously reported internal records detail the charges against former Sgt. Dan Hargraves for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman in his custody last year. He faces criminal charges of custodial sexual misconduct.
- A rape victim decided to drop her case in 2017 based on her treatment by officers, including one officer telling her to come back for an interview later because his shift ended in 10 minutes.
- Multiple officers acknowledged sending sexually charged text messages to female coworkers or making lewd jokes while on duty.
- One officer lost his job after reportedly getting into a drunken argument and kicking in a door, which struck a woman in the face. The prosecutor later declined to file charges.
- Two officers accessed confidential investigative files for personal reasons.
Cmdr. Chris Tennant or sergeants wrote the majority of the reports. The internal disciplinary process evaluates whether staff violated departmental or employee policies. Minor incidents often get handled as “inquiries” while more involved complaints result in a formal investigation. Final dispositions are based on a preponderance of the evidence — meaning more likely than not — instead of the higher criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
In potentially criminal matters, Pullman officials asked an outside agency to handle the investigation.
Jenkins said command staff review all internal investigations and the chief maintains final authority over discipline. Records show just one termination for an officer still on probation as a new hire. In several cases, Jenkins imposed unpaid leave. Most officers received supervisory counseling on their conduct.
Records show Hargraves, as a sergeant, oversaw at least nine conduct cases in recent years.
“We review those really carefully when we go through the process,” Jenkins noted. “There were no indications that there was any misjudgment or any concerns about any of those [cases].”
Hargraves as well as several other officers who faced “major” complaints have since left the department. Some resigned during the investigations or left shortly after.
The department has acknowledged recent staffing shortages with the Daily Evergreen reporting last week retirements and other turnover had left nine positions unfilled. KLEW recently reported the shortages have forced the department to suspend foot patrols and other proactive enforcement efforts.
Of the total complaints, at least five involved allegations of excessive force. Investigators found no wrongdoing in any of those cases. In the 2017 arrest of former WSU football player Treshon Broughton, command staff noted concerns the officer may have gone “hands on too quick,” but later concluded the force was reasonable. Broughton has since filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the department.
Just two complaints involved allegations of racial bias. Investigators reviewed officer body camera footage of those encounters and concluded the officers’ actions were appropriate and professional.
Officer Joshua Bray has faced multiple sustained findings for mishandling cases by filing inaccurate reports or improperly sharing information outside the department. He received a written reprimand as well as a deferred day of unpaid leave over the incorrect reports. He was counseled on the other issues.
Other notable complaints include a Pullman officer who “flashed” his badge at neighbors when he confronted them over hosting a loud party. In another case, a woman reported spotting the police department’s drone flying nearby while she was sunbathing. The report states staff were working to fix a malfunction on the drone, which had no video signal at the time.
Meanwhile, someone once complained an officer was not helpful when they reported their neighbor’s squirrel cage squeaked too loudly. The report states the officer handled that situation “remarkably well.”
Jenkins noted the introduction of body cameras in recent years has improved the department’s internal investigation process by providing an objective record of officer interactions. Investigators can independently assess an officer’s actions and can play back footage for officers during counseling to suggest improvements.
The number of internal conduct cases has risen from 14 complaints in 2014 to 23 cases last year. Jenkins said he believes command staff now proactively initiate more cases each year in addition to reviewing citizen complaints.
“We’re continually trying to professionalize,” he said. “It’s not a destination, it’s a journey. As a result of that, we’re trying to hold people more accountable. Not just based on complaints that come in from the public, but amongst ourselves.”
Jenkins said he believes his officers work hard to serve as positive representatives of the community. He understands some skepticism of how officers exercise their authority given past incidents locally and nationwide, but he said his staff strives for a standard of excellence, accountability and transparency.
“It’s really the department culture that dictates how people are going to operate,” he said. “No matter what policies you have in place, if the department culture doesn’t support those policies then the policies don’t mean anything.”
Read additional details on several of the officer conduct cases after the log.
•••
Whitman County Watch compiled this log based on Pullman Police Department internal affairs reports from 2014 through 2018. It lists the involved officers, allegations, dispositions, imposed discipline and other details. Findings are listed in reverse chronological order by case number, not the date the allegation occurred. Cases involving officers who have since left the department are noted in blue text.
Editor’s note: For transparency, Whitman County Watch has published some full case reports when details seem potentially relevant to public interest. In other cases, we have declined to publish records and details that might allow readers to identify potential victims or unrelated parties.
Rape victim drops case over police treatment
A 2017 internal investigation indicates a rape victim decided against pursuing her case after delays in followup and one Pullman officer making excuses to avoid interviewing her by saying his shift ended in 10 minutes.
The victim alleged Pullman officers repeatedly failed to take her statement, did not retrieve physical evidence from her apartment and suggested she delete photo evidence from her phone, according to the report.
She dropped her case three days later.
“[The victim] showed up at Pullman PD … after no one contacted her for an interview and asked if someone would interview her,” the report states. “By Tuesday, (she) didn’t want anything else done because of the way she had been treated by Pullman PD, and she signed a stop action form.”
Investigators concluded Officer Mike Crow had neglected his duties and failed to obey orders during his interactions with the victim. The department imposed 44 hours of unpaid leave with another 36 unpaid hours deferred. A second officer was cleared of wrongdoing.
“There is nothing in this investigation,” the report states, “to show that officer Crow put the victim’s wishes and needs in front of his own.”
Crow told investigators he believed the victim would be better off speaking with a detective assigned to the case. Crow no longer works for the Pullman police. He later resigned while on leave after failing a fitness test.
The report states the woman contacted police on Jan. 28, 2017 to report she had been raped and alleged the attacker had left his glasses at her apartment. Officer Wade Winegardner took a brief initial statement and escorted her to Pullman Regional Hospital to undergo a rape kit examination.
Winegardner also took pictures of images on the victim’s phone and told her she could block the suspect if he tried to contact her. After reviewing the recordings of their interactions, investigators reported they did not find any suggestion that she delete images or other evidence.
The report states Winegardner asked the victim to call when finished with the exam. She reportedly waited at the hospital for six hours for a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner to complete the rape kit. She then went home.
When Winegardner did not hear back, he passed the information to the next shift for follow up on a full interview and evidence collection. Investigators later determined his actions were proper.
“While there is room for criticism and I could recommend improvements to the performance of Officer Winegardner,” the report states, “there is nothing in the investigation that leads me to [believe] that he had anything but the victim’s wellbeing as the primary consideration.”
Interviews with officers on duty that day show that another officer tried to call the woman and stopped by her apartment. She did not answer, but later called back and said she would stop by the station for an interview. She came in during the 3 p.m. briefing on Jan. 29.
When she arrived, Sgt. Dan Dornes assigned Crow to talk to her based on his previous experience as a detective. The report states the sergeant also approved overtime pay to cover extending Crow’s shift to conduct an interview.
A different officer later told investigators, “he wished he had just interviewed the victim himself because looking back he feels bad for the way she was treated.”
Officer body camera footage of Crow’s discussion with the victim runs 5:44 minutes long. Instead of conducting an interview, Crow reportedly tells her the case will probably go to detectives who might just have to interview her again. He also tells her memory can be better after 48 hours.
“Ofc. Crow tells her ‘we’ are thinking instead of having you go through so many interviews, that she could wait and just give one interview,” the report states. “Ofc. Crow tells [the victim] between now and when a detective interviews her, she should write things down as she remembers them.”
The report states the victim asked when an officer could pick up the suspect’s glasses and some bed sheets from her apartment. Crow told her he would ask “somebody” to pick it up later since his shift ended in 10 minutes. She left without giving any statement.
Crow told investigators he felt “thrown into” the case and believed the victim would be better off conducting a full interview with the assigned detectives. He later acknowledged he had received orders to take her statement and there was no reason he could not stay late that day.
“Officer Crow made no attempt to ascertain the needs and wants of the victim,” the report states, “Sgt. Dornes trusted Officer Crow to make decisions in the best interest of the victim, and (In my opinion) that did not happen here.”
Officers send sexual texts, make lewd comments
Officials have disciplined at least three officers in recent years for sexual harassment involving either unwanted advances against female coworkers or sexually explicit workplace banter.
Command staff twice warned Pullman officer Mike Crow in 2016 for sending inappropriate text messages to a Whitcom dispatcher in one matter and to a coworker at the police department in another case.
In the dispatcher case, Crow allegedly texted that he would like to look down her shirt and in other exchange wrote he felt bad because “I’m attracted to you.”
“I kind of know your [sic] engaged,” he reportedly texted, “but I can’t help it.”
Crow also allegedly threatened to “beat the crap out” of a guy who made an offensive remark to the dispatcher, she told investigators. She reported Crow’s comments made her “extremely uncomfortable.”
Officials closed the case as an inquiry over insufficient evidence, but told Crow not to contact the dispatcher again or go to Whitcom without his supervisor’s approval.
In the coworker case, Crow acknowledged “flirting” with another employee over text. At one point, he stated he might take the woman home with him. The coworker told investigators she found the comments “inappropriate, offensive, and disgusting.”
“Just innocent flirting in my mind,” Crow later told investigators.
The coworker also expressed concerns Crow might have misused police records to obtain her private cell number. Investigators later concluded she had previously provided it to him during an unrelated interaction.
Crow received supervisory counseling, the report states, and was instructed to re-read city policies on sexual harassment. He no longer works for the department.
Former Sgt. Dan Hargraves also received counseling in 2016 after he reportedly texted a female coworker that he “wanted to get naked” with her. The woman told investigators she felt Hargraves was trying to bait her into a strange conversation before he sent the text.
“She said she saved the text after talking to her mom about it, and her mom said, ‘Make sure you keep it just in case,’” the report states.
Hargraves reportedly acknowledged sending the text. He later told investigators he believed the “flirting” was mutual and he ended the conversation after she made it clear she was not interested.
Command staff imposed supervisory counseling, citing a lack of previous incidents. Hargraves no longer works at the department. He resigned in lieu of termination in November over criminal charges of sexual custodial misconduct. His trial is currently set for September.
Code enforcement officer Gary Labusohr also received a written reprimand in 2016 for making multiple lewd comments around female coworkers, including suggesting one woman needed to have “wild sex” and another time said she was so excited she might “orgasm.” Both comments were made while on-duty.
In a third instance, the report alleges Labusohr asked a coworker about whether she had “loose morals” or took men home from the bar.
“Labusohr [told investigators] he would not get a fair hearing on this matter due to biases toward him in the department,” the report states, “and explained how there is often bantering of a sexual nature and other offensive topics being discussed that no one is questioned about. Labusohr basically said he believes he is being singled out by the department and command staff.”
Multiple employees reported the comments made them upset, uncomfortable and angry. Jenkins initially sought to impose 24 hours of unpaid leave, but reduced the discipline to a written reprimand after meeting with Labusohr and his attorney.
Labusohr no longer works for the department.
Officer discharged over drunken dispute
Authorities forwarded counts of assault and malicious mischief against a Pullman police officer in 2016 after a drunken argument ended with him allegedly kicking in a door, which struck a woman in the face. The prosecutor later declined to file charges.
Pullman police officials fired Officer Steven Perez, who was still on probation as a recent hire at the time, over the incident. They cited a failure to meet community standards as the basis for his discharge.
Internal records show Perez had gone out drinking off duty with a fellow officer in April of 2016. While at a downtown Pullman bar, Perez reportedly became argumentative after a confrontation with another patron.
Investigators and Perez later characterized his intoxication as “extreme.” When asked how drunk he felt on a scale from 1 to 10, sober to blacked-out, Perez reportedly responded, “It was a 10. It was fuzz.”
Perez, after declining offers for a ride home, got into an argument with a woman at a Pullman residence, the report states. The woman tried to end the dispute by pushing Perez out of the home and closing the front door behind him.
Investigators allege he then kicked in the front door, part of which hit the woman in the face. Authorities reported she suffered a large bump or bruise on the forehead.
The report notes the front door had an opaque window in it.
“When you kicked the door,” investigators asked him, “to the best of your recollection, ‘cause I know it’s fuzzy, you didn’t have any indication that there was someone behind it when you kicked it?”
“No,” Perez answered. “Not at all.”
The woman called an off-duty Pullman officer for help, the report states. Upon arrival, that officer decided to notify his supervisors and the incident was assigned to WSU Police for an independent criminal investigation.
Perez was never arrested as part of the investigation. WSU officers initially concluded no crime had occurred, but upon further review forwarded allegations of third-degree assault and third-degree malicious mischief against Perez.
County Prosecutor Denis Tracy later issued a letter declining to pursue charges based on the wishes of the woman and uncertainty about the extent of damage to the door.
During the investigation, Pullman officials put Perez on administrative leave. Multiple Pullman officers submitted letters of support for him at the time.
“[Perez] works hard, is intelligent, has street smarts, and makes good decisions,” one officer wrote. “Steven is a very good cop and a good addition to this department. … I want this department to have the best officers possible, and he absolutely is one.”
Perez went on to serve as a part-time officer for the Colfax Police Department, one of four 2016 hires at the center of that department’s ongoing police chief termination dispute. Perez has since moved on to another agency.
Upon request from Whitman County Watch, the Pullman Police Department provided more than 180 pages of investigative records on this case, including documents from the WSU Police and the county prosecutor’s office.
Officers access confidential files
In July of last year, Officer Brian Chamberlin violated city policy by using his access to confidential investigative records to see information another police department had on an active criminal case involving a family member. The records system logged his search of the case files and he acknowledged viewing the records. He was not disciplined.
“A technical policy violation did occur, therefore the allegation is sustained,” Jenkins wrote in the report. “However, due to the mitigating circumstances, discipline is not in order and would serve no purpose.”
Code enforcement officer Gary Labusohr also allegedly violated the department’s “need to know” access policy on confidential records by looking up information on a friend’s husband in 2015. The friend said his actions made her uncomfortable and she worried he would use his access to look up additional information on her, her friends or other family members.
“When questioned, Labusohr either admitted looking up information … for personal reasons or not having a direct memory of the particular search,” the report states. “If this type of behavior had been done by a police officer, I would be recommending termination. … However, as a code enforcement officer, Labusohr has not had the training and experience similar to that of a full-time officer to understand the scope of the violation to [the victim] and to the general public.”
As discipline, Labusohr served 16 hours of unpaid leave. Another 40 hours were deferred pending a year without similar conduct. He no longer works for the department.