Performance Audit of
King County Sheriff’s Office and
Office of Law Enforcement
Oversight

Susan Baugh, Sr. Principal Management Auditor
Justin Anderson, Sr. Management Auditor
Ron Perry, Deputy County Auditor
July 24, 2012
Report No. 2012-01

Executive
Summary

Significant issues with King County Sheriff’s Office’s (KCSO) policies and procedures
for documenting and investigating complaints, and inconsistent adherence to those
policies among KCSO units undermine organizational and individual accountability.
KCSO’s inability to enforce the procedures for complaints and policy violations was also
inconsistent with Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies standards
or best practices. In addition, efforts to implement civilian oversight in King County have
been hampered by labor and legal issues—from the policy development phase to the
collaborative efforts of the new Office of Law Enforcement Oversight Director and the
Sheriff to launch an effective oversight function.
Sixteen recommendations are offered in the report to improve KCSO complaint policies,
processes, and investigations, as well as to provide effective law enforcement oversight as
envisioned by the King County Council and by the former KCSO Blue Ribbon Panel.

t; King County
Metropolitan King County Council
King County Auditor's Office
Cheryle A. Broom, King County Auditor
King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue, Room W1033
Seattle, WA 98104-3272
206.296.1655 Fax 206.296.0159
Email: KCAO@kingcounty.gov
TTY 296-1024
www.kingcounty.gov/auditor

MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:

July 24,2012
Metropolitan King County Councilmembers
Cheryle A.

Broom~ounty Auditor

Performance Audit ofthe King County Sheriffs Office (KCSO)
Complaint Investigations and Office of Law Enforcement Oversight (OLEO)

Ordinance 16511, adopted by the County Council in May 2009, directed the Auditor's Office to
establish a permanent, ongoing law enforcement audit process, focusing on Sheriffs Office
Internal Investigation Unit's (lIU) operations, and the effectiveness of OLEO in providing
oversight ofKCSO. Conducted in conjunction with a national law enforcement consulting firm,
Hillard Heintze LLC, the primary purposes of this audit were to evaluate the Sh.eriff s Office
internal investigation operations, and to assess the effectiveness of the new OLEO in providing
oversight of the lIU. This audit also included a review of best practices for managing citizeninitiated and internally-generated police misconduct and use of force complaints.
Based on the results of the audit, we concluded that significant issues with KCSO's complaint
policies and procedures for investigating complaints, and inconsistent adherence to those policies
among KCSO units undermine organizational and individual accountability. KCSO's inability to
enforce its procedures for complaints and policy violations was also inconsistent with the
Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) standards or best
practices. The result is that the County may be exposed to greater risks from claims (e.g.,
excessive use of force, vehicle accidents, etc.), and may be unable to maintain its CALEA
accreditation. We recommend that KCSO develop more detailed policies that outline the exact
investigation and reporting processes for all complaints. These processes should become the
standard that are categorically adhered to by officers and supervisors.
We also identified significant challenges in implementing OLEO as an effective civilian
oversight function under the current organizational and legal framework, and noted KCSO had
worked proactively with the County Council and council staff to develop new collective
bargaining strategies to restore OLEO's authorities to provide effective civilian oversight in King
County. We also recommended that OLEO, in collaboration with KCSO, continue planning and
developing working guidelines and measurable objectives to assure that the positive effects and
benefits of civilian law enforcement oversight are maximized in King County. KCSO concurred
with all 16 audit recommendations and has already begun implementing them. OLEO also
concurred with the recommendations, but implementation is contingent upon labor negotiations.
CB:RP:SB:JA:jl

CONFIDENTIAL PROPOSED FINAL REPORT—NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION;
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

Performance Audit of King County
Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement
Oversight
Purpose

Key Audit
Findings

Report Highlights
July 24, 2012
Report No. 2012-01

This audit of the Sheriff’s Office Internal Investigations and Office of Law
Enforcement Oversight (OLEO) functions is the first in a series of annual
audit reports mandated by the County Council in Ordinance 16511.
Conducted in conjunction with a national law enforcement consulting firm,
Hillard Heintze LLC, the purpose of this audit was to evaluate the current
state of the Sheriff’s Office internal investigation operations and practices,
and assess the effectiveness of OLEO in providing council-directed
oversight of the IIU. The audit also included a review of national best
practices for managing citizen-initiated and internally-generated police
misconduct and use of force complaints.
Significant issues with KCSO’s policies for investigating and documenting
complaints, and inconsistent adherence to those policies among KCSO units
undermine organizational and individual accountability. KCSO’s inability
to enforce its procedures for complaints and policy violations was also
inconsistent with the Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement
Agencies (CALEA) standards or best practices.
Significant challenges were also identified in implementing OLEO as an
effective civilian oversight function under the current organizational and
legal framework. For example, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
interpreting the King County and Police Guild collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) contains a provision that allows for the termination of the
OLEO Director as a possible remedy if the arbitrator rules that the director
has violated any part of Article 22--Civilian Oversight provisions of the
CBA.

What We
Recommend

We recommend that KCSO develop more detailed policies that outline the
exact investigation and reporting processes for all complaints. These
processes should become the standard that are categorically adhered to by
officers and supervisors.
We also recommend that OLEO, in collaboration with KCSO, continue
planning and developing working guidelines and measurable objectives to
assure that the effectiveness and benefits of law enforcement oversight are
maximized in King County.

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
Effective Management and Supervision ............................................................................... 6
KCSO Complaint Policies and Procedures ..................................................................... 14
KCSO Accountability Tools ............................................................................................... 19
Implementing Law Enforcement Oversight ..................................................................... 25
Appendix 1: Executive Summary, Hillard Heintze Performance Audit, King County
Sheriff’s Office and Office of Law Enforcement Oversight ......................................... 35
Appendix 2: Hillard Heintze and King County Auditor’s Office Scope and
Methodologies........................................................................................................................ 43
Appendix 3: King County Sheriff’s Office, Organizational Charts 2012 .................. 46
Appendix 4: General Overview of the KCSO IIU Complaint Process .................... 47
Appendix 5: Comparison of Ordinance 15611 and Ordinance 16511 Revisions
Pertaining to Office of Law Enforcement Oversight .................................................... 48
Appendix 6: Oversight Provisions in Police Guild 2008-2012 Collective
Bargaining Agreement .......................................................................................................... 53
King County Sheriff’s Office Response................................................................. 56
Office of Law Enforcement Oversight Response............................................... 74
Statement of Compliance ........................................................................................ 80
List of Recommendations and Implementation Schedule ................................ 81

Alternative Formats Available Upon Request

Introduction
Council
Established
OLEO
Function in
King County

In January 2006, the Metropolitan King County Council introduced
legislation establishing a new Office of Law Enforcement Oversight
(OLEO). Following a series of labor issues, the County Council adopted
Ordinance 16511 modifying the authority of the Office of Law Enforcement
Oversight and directing the King County Auditor’s Office to establish a
permanent, ongoing law enforcement audit process. Due to a delay in hiring
the new OLEO Director until September 2011, the County Auditor, with the
County Council’s concurrence, waited to initiate the formal law enforcement
audit process until 2012. Annual reviews and updates of Sheriff’s Office
misconduct and use of force complaints were prepared by the Auditor’s
Office and presented to the Council during the interim period.
Ordinance 16511 contains two mandates for the County Auditor: 1) Acquire
an outside law enforcement expert to conduct the initial audit of the Sheriff’s
Office internal investigations function, and 2) provide for a periodic review
of the Sheriff’s Office Internal Investigation Unit (IIU), including an annual
written report to the County Council. In addition to the annual audit of the
Sheriff’s Office internal investigations function, the County Auditor is also
responsible for assessing the effectiveness of OLEO and reviewing the
annual reports developed and transmitted to the Council by the OLEO
Director.

Hillard
Heintze
Retained to
Conduct First
Review of
OLEO and
KCSO
Complaint
Investigations

In November 2011, the King County Auditor’s Office (KCAO) engaged
Hillard Heintze, LLC to conduct the first review of both the King County
Sheriff’s Office (KCSO) IIU and OLEO. Hillard Heintze analyzed current
Sheriff’s Office complaint and internal investigations operations and
practices. The firm also analyzed the proposed oversight framework
developed by the new OLEO Director based on best law enforcement
practices. The executive summary of the Hillard Heintze report is contained
in Appendix 1; the entire report, including appendices, is available online at
the King County Auditor’s Office website:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/auditor.aspx.
Audit Purpose, Scope and Methodology
This audit of the Sheriff’s Office Internal Investigations and Office of Law
Enforcement Oversight functions is the first in a series of annual audit
reports mandated by the County Council in Ordinance 16511. The primary
audit purposes were to evaluate the current state of Sheriff’s Office internal
investigation operations and practices, and to assess the effectiveness of
OLEO in providing council-directed oversight of the IIU. Conducted in
conjunction with a national law enforcement consulting firm, Hillard
Heintze, this audit included a review of national best practices for managing
citizen-initiated and internally-generated police misconduct and use of force
complaints.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

1

Introduction
The Hillard Heintze and County Auditor’s Office scopes and methodologies
are consolidated and presented in Appendix 2.
Audit Conclusions
KCSO Policy
Issues and
Inconsistent
Enforcement
Undermine
Police
Accountability

Significant issues within KCSO’s policies and procedures for documenting
and investigating complaints, and inconsistent adherence to those policies
and procedures among KCSO units undermine organizational and individual
accountability. For example, KCSO supervisors and the chain of command
have not consistently enforced the policies and procedures to ensure officer
accountability throughout the department, particularly those assigned to
remote field offices. In addition, the IIU may not be adequately staffed to
fulfill its internal oversight and investigative responsibilities, along with
those of the KCSO supervisors and chain of command assigned to review
complaints, to ensure that all complaints are appropriately investigated and
documented according to the established policies and procedures.
KCSO’s enforcement of procedures for complaints and policy violations was
also inconsistent with Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement
Agencies (CALEA) standards or best practices, which require uniform
implementation of and adherence to policies by all KCSO officers,
supervisors, and the chain of command. Tools available to assist in
documenting and tracking complaints and correcting problematic officer
conduct, such as the IAPro database, training, and the annual performance
review process, were underutilized by KCSO management in assessing and
addressing officer performance and accountability issues. The result is that
the County may be exposed to greater risks from claims (e.g., excessive use
of force, vehicle accidents, etc.), and may be unable to maintain its CALEA
accreditation.

Current Legal
Framework
Challenges
OLEO’s
Effectiveness

We identified significant challenges in implementing OLEO as an effective
civilian oversight function under the current organizational and legal
framework. Roles, responsibilities, and legal authorities between KCSO,
OLEO, and other County departments require greater clarity in some cases
and major revisions in other cases. For example, the complaint roles of the
Ombudsman’s Office and OLEO as well as the roles of Auditor’s Office and
OLEO in conducting KCSO audits and evaluations have been clarified to
avoid duplication of effort. Working guidelines are also needed to ensure
that OLEO can perform its oversight role without interfering with KCSO’s
police business or its own internal investigation practices. Although these
issues are typical in the introduction of civilian oversight of law enforcement
across the nation, challenges from the Police Guild have seriously inhibited
implementation of effective civilian oversight in King County. For example,
the Police Guild has already filed three grievances against the OLEO
Director for attending the IIU Advisory Group and briefings on officerinvolved shootings—which the Sheriff invited him to attend. In addition, a

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

2

Introduction
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) interpreting the King County and Police
Guild collective bargaining agreement (CBA) contains a provision that
allows for the termination of the OLEO Director as a possible remedy if an
arbitrator rules that the Director has violated any part of the Article 22—
Civilian Oversight provisions of the CBA.
Significant Audit Findings and Recommendations
Effective
Management
and Supervision
Lynchpin of
Police
Accountability



The lynchpin of police accountability is effective management and
supervision. KCSO supervisors, chain of command, and the IIU have not
been able to demonstrate consistent leadership in adhering to established
policies and procedures for all complaints, allegations, and potential
policy violations. One contributing factor is that the IIU is not now
recognized and promoted as the core internal affairs function in the
department’s commitment to achieve professional excellence in policing
practices through the consistent enforcement of policies and other actions
to deter violations. Other factors include the absence of a departmentinitiated complaint provision and a failure to supervise provision in the
KCSO General Orders Manual (GOM) on personnel misconduct.
We recommend that the King County Sheriff and IIU be given the
authority to file, without restriction from the rank and file, a departmentinitiated complaint when supervisors and commanders refuse to do so in
the event of egregious acts of misconduct and policy violations. The
Sheriff should also empower and staff the IIU to handle such complaints
with the full cooperation of direct supervisors and commanders.



KCSO's GOM and the IIU's Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) were
insufficient in providing direction to commissioned personnel or in
achieving organizational and operational goals relating to complaint
processes and resolution. KCSO management’s inability or reluctance to
enforce and gain broad compliance from officers, supervisors, and the
chain of command with the policies and procedures were inconsistent
with law enforcement best practices. In addition, KCSO’s misconduct
and complaints policies and practices did not conform to the CALEA
standards for accredited law enforcement agencies. Improved KCSO
policies, procedures, and mandatory compliance are necessary to avoid
loss of CALEA accreditation.
We recommend that KCSO develop a more detailed GOM and IIU
SOPs that outline the exact reporting and investigation processes for all
complaints, including both misconduct and policy violations, and these
detailed polices should become a standard that must be categorically
adhered to by officers and supervisors throughout the department. In
addition, we recommend that KCSO expand the GOM to include a
Department-Initiated Complaint provision and Failure to Supervise
provision, along with the specific consequences of failing to report a

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

3

Introduction
complaint through the chain of command to encourage consistent
management and reporting of all complaints. We also recommend that
KCSO review the current CALEA standards, identify any gaps in its
GOM and SOPs, and address them prior to the scheduled CALEA
reaccreditation process in 2013.
KCSO
Accountability
System
Underutilized



KCSO implemented an accountability system to help manage and
analyze citizen complaints, administrative investigations, and other
incidents. However, underutilization and inconsistent use of these system
tools impacted their effectiveness in improving accountability
department-wide. Enhancing the system with additional entries on
misconduct and policy violation incidents would allow KCSO to manage
the Early Intervention System (EIS) counseling protocol more
effectively, and help KCSO prioritize training to address behaviors that
generate complaints. These accountability system improvements are also
necessary to respond appropriately to KCSO’s ongoing audit and annual
reporting requirements. In addition, the EIS only utilizes the IAPro
complaint and incident data within a rolling 90-day period. A 90-day
rolling period for retention of complaint and incident data is not
consistent with best law enforcement practices, as it is too short a period
to identify employees who have performance issues.
We recommend that KCSO outline policies and procedures for
supervisory reporting and increase its entry of incident data into Blue
Team data system, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the Blue Team
application and the EIS. We also recommend that KCSO explore
opportunities to extend the EIS period for utilizing incident data from 90
days (as negotiated by the Police Guild) to one year (as consistent with
best practices), in order to improve the effectiveness of proactive officer
instruction, the completeness of trend analysis, and the thoroughness of
reports to KCSO top management, County officials, and the public. In
addition, we also recommend that KCSO annually prepare detailed
progress reports and statistical data to facilitate KCAO’s ongoing
periodic audits and annual reports.

CouncilAdopted Labor
Policy
Addressed
Some Barriers
to Effective
Oversight



Organizational, legal, and labor barriers must be addressed to ensure that
effective oversight is implemented to promote greater professionalism
and public trust in King County law enforcement. The potential threat of
termination of the OLEO Director is an example of a primary deterrent to
effective oversight that requires immediate attention. We note that on
June 18, 2012, the King County Council adopted a labor policy to
support civilian oversight of the Sheriff’s Office (LP2012-033). Working
guidelines are also needed to outline exactly what the OLEO can and
cannot do to promote a successful working relationship between KCSO
and OLEO.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

4

Introduction
We recommend OLEO, in collaboration with KCSO, continue planning
and developing working guidelines and measurable objectives to assure
that the effectiveness and benefits of law enforcement oversight are
maximized in King County. We also recommend that the King County
Council consider, pending the outcome of labor negotiations, embodying
the language of its newly adopted labor policy regarding civilian
oversight of the Sheriff’s Office into Chapter 2.75 of the King County
Code.
Audit Report Structure
This performance audit of the King County Sheriff’s Office complaint
investigation function and the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight is
organized into four sections and findings:
 Effective Management and Supervision
 KCSO Complaint Policies and Procedures
 KCSO Accountability Tools
 Implementing Law Enforcement Oversight

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

5

Effective Management and Supervision
Section
Summary

Effective management and supervision is the lynchpin of KCSO
accountability. This section reviews KCSO management and staffing issues
that have impacted KCSO’s complaint function, management of sworn
personnel, and organizational accountability. Well-trained supervisors are
crucial in law enforcement, especially given the high-risk, high-profile work
in which deputies are engaged. Although quality managers can shore up
weaknesses in policies and procedures, exceptional policies cannot make up
for leaders who are not present or willing to require their subordinates—or
themselves—to follow them. Supervisors’ ability to lead, control, and direct
the work of subordinates, along with the Sheriff’s authority to ensure that the
organization is well-managed and accountable, is the primary determinant of
officer accountability and performance.

Leadership
Needed to
Promote More
Rigorous
Compliance with
KCSO
Accountability
System and
Complaint
Processes

Unfortunately, KCSO leadership has not promoted officer and management
accountability through the expectation of rigorous compliance with the
department’s accountability system and support of the internal investigations
function. Revisions to the KCSO accountability process introduced in 2011
inherently rely upon front-line field supervisors to properly initiate,
investigate, and document complaints and incidents of misconduct and
policy violations by subordinate officers. However, the KCSO chain of
command does not properly require them to do so, nor support them when
they do. Senior KCSO leadership openly downplays the importance of the
discipline process, low-level complaint and incident reporting, and followthrough. Performance incidents that are reported and documented are
unaddressed or ignored at the command level. As observed by Hillard
Heintze, the result is a departmental culture that downplays the importance
of officer accountability
and complaint response.
In addition, the inability of
the Sheriff, KCSO top
management, and the IIU
to file department-initiated
complaints for egregious
misconduct and policy
violations; turnover and
reduced staffing in the IIU;
the organizational
alignment of the IIU and
indirect reporting
relationship of the IIU
Commander to the Sheriff;
and the Field Operations
Division span of control
are also deterrents to
accountability.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

6

Effective Management and Supervision
Inconsistent leadership was also observed by Hillard Heintze during its
review of KCSO misconduct complaint investigation files and their
disposition.
Background on the King County Sheriff’s Office
King County is the most populous county in Washington State, covering a
geographical area of more than 2,100 square miles and 12 contract cities.
KCSO provides professional law enforcement services to over 1.8 million
residents. KCSO is staffed by approximately 1,000 employees, including 652
deputies and 340 non-sworn personnel. Appendix 3 contains the most recent
KCSO organization chart.
The IIU is staffed by four sworn employees (one captain and three detective
sergeants) and one non-sworn administrative staff. The IIU is responsible for
receiving and investigating all citizen complaints, and reviewing complaints
initiated through the KCSO chain of command against commissioned
personnel accused of misconduct, including excessive use of force.
As shown in the KCSO organization chart, the IIU is organized under the
Professional Standards Division and does not have a direct reporting
relationship to the King County Sheriff.
Finding 1: KCSO Supervisors, Chain of Command, and the IIU
Have Not Consistently Demonstrated Leadership in Sustaining
Accountability Practices.
Early Blue
Ribbon Panel
Recommendations
Were Not
Sustained

KCSO made progress in implementing a number of significant
recommendations from the 2006 King County Sheriff’s Blue Ribbon Panel.
Examples included the development of new, expanded policies and
procedures; a successful effort to become accredited by CALEA; and the
implementation of IAPro complaint and incident management software—
including an Early Intervention System to identify performance issues and
training requirements. However, some of the early implementation efforts
were not fully executed or sustained over time. As a result, KCSO is not
complying with three of the six Blue Ribbon Panel findings and
recommendations that directly tie officer conduct to their supervisors’
responsibility to create and sustain a culture of accountability:


Recommendation 1: Executive leadership of the Sheriff’s Office should
take primary responsibility for creating, implementing, modeling, and
sustaining reforms that improve accountability.



Recommendation 3: The Sheriff’s Office management and supervision
system should be improved to support supervisors in making the office
more accountable.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

7

Effective Management and Supervision


Recommendation 5: The Sheriff’s Office should create and strengthen
organizational structures that support leadership, management,
supervision, and accountability.

Based on Hillard Heintze’s findings, KCSO leadership has not adequately
promoted officer and management accountability through the expectation of
rigorous compliance with the department’s accountability system and
support of the internal investigations function. In addition to the
investigation of officer misconduct, current law enforcement best practices
augment quality assurance through practical analysis of individual and
departmental performance data.1 Effective accountability structures provide
the platform to take in, measure, and manage officer performance
information, intelligently guiding departmental policies, officer training
goals, and performance reviews. Instead of merely reacting to officer
misconduct through detailed investigations and discipline, such structures
allow departments to proactively identify and address performance trends
and issues before they develop into significant misconduct and discipline
problems.
An essential best practice in managing effective accountability structures is
in the diligent collection and reporting of event information. By fully
documenting important officer incidents and interactions with the
community, and fully investigating all complaints, misconduct, and policy
violations, the department has a complete range of performance data and the
ability to respond to it. Hillard Heintze’s analysis suggests that KCSO does
not require reporting of all incident information and investigation of all
officer acts outside departmental policy.
Consistent
Action by FrontLine Supervisors
Needed to
Address and
Document
Misconduct

Another essential best law enforcement practice is management’s response in
taking appropriate action to address all acts outside policy, no matter how
seemingly minor or inconsequential, and documenting the steps taken. This
component relies on the ability and willingness of the supervisors along the
chain of command to hold their subordinates accountable. Front-line
supervisors are responsible for identifying, investigating, correcting, and
fully documenting all officer acts outside of policy. Similarly, section
managers and executive leaders—up to and including the Sheriff—must
require and support supervisors in doing so. These best practices are the
heart of the officer accountability system. Based on Hillard Heintze’s
interviews and analysis, KCSO leadership may not be reporting or
responding appropriately to known incidents of policy violations or
misconduct.
Fundamentally, institutionalizing and sustaining officer accountability
requires leadership. However, Hilliard Heintze’s observations indicate that
some KCSO field supervisors and commanders do not provide this

1

See, e.g., “Building Trust Between Police And The Citizens They Serve,” National Institute of Justice Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) Report, pg. 32.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

8

Effective Management and Supervision
leadership. Based on Hillard Heintze’s interviews and reviews of incident
data, supervisors are not consistently identifying and reporting complaints or
incidents of misconduct and policy violations. In its interviews of KCSO
management and officers, Hillard Heintze discovered multiple instances
where supervisors and commanders did not know about, review, or refer
issues to the IIU for review and action.
In addition, Hilliard Heintze randomly selected and reviewed 14 of the 732
investigative cases handled or coordinated by the IIU during 2011, and also
reviewed the investigative files for the two use of force investigations
conducted that year. The review evaluated whether these cases were handled
according to KCSO’s GOM and the IIU’s written policies and procedures.
The case review also allowed Hillard Heintze an opportunity to assess the
quality of investigations and make recommendations for improvements to
the KCSO complaint handling process. (Hillard Heintze’s methodology for
the case review is presented in Appendix 2 of this report and in Chapter III
of the Hillard Heintze report, available at
http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/auditor.)
Briefly, the Hillard Heintze’s review of the case investigation files
documented final dispositions of “unfounded” and “not sustained” even in
instances in which the officer not only had a history of inappropriate
behavior but also admitted to offensive actions to the case investigator.
Problematically, when these inconsistencies were identified, Hillard Heintze
could not find documentation of any executive leadership requiring
corrective or additional action to eliminate the inconsistencies. Hillard
Heintze also noted that only non-sworn KCSO personnel received
“sustained” dispositions.
IIU Must Have
Authority to
Initiate and
Investigate
Conduct and
Policy Violations

In many best practice police agencies, the internal affairs function serves as a
check on supervisory reticence or reluctance to lead. Within KCSO,
however, IIU’s role has been restricted to the extent that it is not able to
perform quality assurance reviews of leadership practices and responses in
other units. For example, the IIU cannot initiate investigations into
misconduct or violations of policy without a citizen, supervisor, or the chain
of command filing a complaint. As such, IIU’s effectiveness depends on the
willingness of the chain of command to provide leadership in reporting and
addressing officer accountability.
The inability of the IIU to file a complaint on its own accord, or to
investigate without a complaint being filed, also eliminates an important
organizational safeguard in the event that supervisors and commanders are
unable and/or unwilling to fulfill their roles in addressing misconduct and
policy violations. KCSO’s limitations on IIU’s investigatory authority
essentially transfer portions of its quality assurance responsibilities from the

2

Fourteen cases were determined to meet statistical significance threshold (roughly 20 percent of 73 total) per Hillard Heintze’s
statistical expert.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

9

Effective Management and Supervision
IIU to the first-line supervisors and chain of command. IIU cannot
appropriately make up for breakdowns in poor subordinate observation and
corrective management along the chain of command.
The fact that KCSO does not have a “Failure to Supervise” provision in its
GOM exacerbates these concerns, as discussed in KCSO Accountability
Tools section in this report. When the IIU and the Professional Standards
Division Manager (to whom the IIU Commander reports) attempt to “do the
right thing” to address potential misconduct and policy violations, they do so
under the threat of violating their own policy and the Police Guild filing a
formal grievance.
Early 2011, changes to the accountability system made the entry and
categorization of complaints received in the field the responsibility of field
supervisors. Supervisors can effectively minimize incidents and corrective
actions relative to their subordinate officers, because there is no GOM
provision subjecting a supervisor to corrective action when he/she does not
supervise or report officer misconduct. And because IIU is not positioned to
ensure all incidents are thoroughly documented, reported, and resolved, the
performance issues leading to these incidents are unlikely to be addressed.
This is a serious weakness that the former Sheriff and Blue Ribbon Panel
attempted to address in 2006.
IIU Not
Currently Seen or
Respected as Core
of KCSO
Professionalism

Based on comments made during Hillard Heintze’s interviews with KCSO,
their professional judgment is that the IIU is not seen or respected as the core
of KCSO professionalism by KCSO management and line staff, hampering
its stature and threatening its importance in carrying out its mission. A
contributing factor may be that the IIU has had five commanders in the past
three years, and vacant positions are not immediately filled or backfilled. For
example, at one point in 2011 only two of the four IIU investigator positions
were filled; currently, only two investigators and the IIU Commander are
assigned to the unit. Also, although the IIU Commander prepares case report
briefings for the Sheriff on a regular basis, the Sheriff does not regularly
meet with the Professional Standards Manager or IIU Commander (e.g.,
daily or weekly), contrary to best practice and CALEA requirements.
The KCSO Operational Structure Exacerbates Supervision
Challenges
The geographic dispersion of patrol teams throughout King County,
combined with the lack of supervisors and commanders on swing, graveyard,
and weekend shifts presents an additional challenge for KCSO. Some patrol
deputies in the outlying areas check into work remotely from their patrol cars
rather than report to a work site and do not see their supervisors for a full
week. In addition, the absence of a daily briefing (i.e., a “roll call”)
effectively eliminates daily interactions between KCSO supervisors and their
subordinates. This lack of supervisor-to-officer contact raises concerns as to

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

10

Effective Management and Supervision
whether and to what degree it negatively impacts KCSO’s ability to
effectively manage officer conduct, including misconduct reporting and
investigation. Given the lack of contact, the need for all supervisors to
rigorously comply with KCSO policies and procedures is even greater, since
the opportunities to recognize and intervene in problematic officer behavior
are fewer.
Another related factor is KCSO’s span of control. The supervisory span of
control currently varies depending upon supervisors’ assigned roles,
locations, and shifts. During its January 2012 interviews, the typical span of
control ratio of sergeants to deputies in the incorporated parts of the county
was reported to Hillard Heintze as approximately 1:7, with a ratio as high as
roughly 1:25 in some rural, unincorporated areas of the county. Hillard
Heintze’s report notes that, compared to other law enforcement agencies of
similar size and structure, periods with a ratio as high as 1:25 might further
limit opportunities for supervisors to interact with and observe their
subordinates. Additional analysis by KCSO estimated the current span of
control ranges between 1:5 and 1:12, with an average ratio of 1:8.
Complaint Investigation May Be Compromised by Supervision
Challenges
Consistent with many large police agencies, KCSO sergeants (other than
those assigned to IIU) are generally responsible for the investigation and
documentation of “lower level” complaints and policy violations. As span of
control ratios increase, the advantages of this approach decrease. That is,
supervisors who have a greater number of subordinates requiring active
supervision, correspondingly have less time for complaint-related duties.
High supervisory ratios raise questions as to whether these supervisory
functions can actually be performed by sergeants at all.
Paradoxically, the lack of consistent supervision of deputies might result in a
comparatively low number of complaints reported and investigated.
Complaints may simply “fall through the cracks”—perhaps addressed at the
immediate location, but rarely entered into Blue Team or followed up and
closed with more than a cursory investigation.
Some KCSO
Commanders Did
Not Actively
Promote
Accountability

KCSO’s practices also raise a central concern as to the overall involvement
of KCSO’s commanders and supervisors in promoting accountability
throughout the department. As noted above, multiple sources identified
actions by officers and supervisors that did not comply with established
KCSO policies and observed incidents that were unreported and/or later
ignored. Similarly, we learned that many fundamental parts of the system are
not well known or understood by senior KCSO commanders. For example,
some command officers reported that they had never seen an Early
Intervention System report or did not know the specific requirements for

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

11

Effective Management and Supervision
misconduct complaint follow-up. These responses highlight the challenge in
raising the profile of and compliance with KCSO’s accountability systems.
A Stronger Performance Appraisal System, If Implemented,
Could Benefit KCSO Deputies
Given the low supervisory ratios and geographic spread of KCSO
assignments noted above, Hillard Heintze was surprised to learn that KCSO
had not completed annual employee appraisals for all employees.3 An
effective performance appraisal process is valuable for any law enforcement
agency whose goal is to have supervisors ensure the quality of their
subordinates’ work to avoid potential complaints. However, supervisors who
are not fully aware of their subordinates’ work—including work that may
generate complaints—cannot directly address problems during annual
performance evaluations. This results in a missed opportunity to address
performance issues before they evolve into greater risks. Interviewees also
advised Hillard Heintze that those appraisals that are completed do not
appear to address potential complaint-generating work habits or traits.
Improved utilization of the performance appraisal process would increase its
value as a quality assurance tool for KCSO sergeants, commanders, and
individual officers.
Finding 2: Egregious Misconduct or Policy Violations Require
Immediate Response from Sheriff and Top Management.
In Finding 1 above, we discussed the concern that KCSO does not have a
“Failure to Supervise” provision in its GOM or IIU SOPs for supervisors in
responding to more routine misconduct and policy violations. We also
addressed the issues related to the absence of a provision allowing the IIU to
initiate a complaint or complaint investigation unless a direct supervisor or
commander files a complaint against an officer for misconduct or a policy
violation. Given the Sheriff’s responsibility for maintaining the department’s
integrity, however, an even more challenging dilemma is the absence of the
Sheriff’s authority to commence a department-initiated investigation for
egregious misconduct and policy violations.
Sheriff Is Not
Empowered to
Initiate
Complaints or IIU
Investigations
Without a
Complaint

3

Presently, the Sheriff and the IIU cannot self-initiate a complaint when direct
supervisors and commanders refuse to do so in the event of egregious acts of
misconduct or policy violations. They are also not empowered to initiate an
investigation without a formal complaint that is filed by a citizen or direct
supervisors and commanders. Allowing the KCSO Sheriff or IIU to initiate
complaints and investigations at any departmental level—including the
Sheriff—is a best practice nationally, because officers will truly be “above
the law” without such authority. Given KCSO’s history of serving its
citizens, a Sheriff and IIU that has anything less than full authority to enforce
the law and departmental standards is unacceptable.

As of the end of 2011, 116 evaluations of sworn officers had not been completed.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

12

Effective Management and Supervision
As Hillard Heintze observed, the absence of these provisions is even more of
concern given KCSO’s departmental culture with respect to officer
accountability. Placing the responsibility for managing low-level complaints
and policy violations on front-line supervisors, but then not requiring them to
do so, is counterproductive to promoting departmental accountability. It is
more likely to result in a continued culture of downplaying the seriousness of
complaints and complaint investigations; underutilizing accountability
systems and tools; and resisting management’s earnest attempts to intervene
and “do the right thing” to address officer misconduct. These limitations to
the Sheriff and IIU’s authority prevent them from acting as the safety net to
catch unaddressed and/or unreported misconduct.
Recommendation 1

KCSO should develop leadership expectations that all complaints,
misconduct, and policy violations will be categorically captured and reported
into Blue Team. KCSO should also expand the GOM by adding a Failure to
Supervise section and outlining disciplinary actions for supervisors who fail
to document all incidents of misconduct and violations of policy, as required
by the GOM.

Recommendation 2

KCSO executive leadership should formally and informally remind officers
and supervisors that compliance with personnel conduct and reporting
requirements is mandatory, and must be the standard by which
professionalism is demonstrated throughout the department.

Recommendation 3

The GOM should be changed, allowing the Sheriff and/or IIU to file, without
restriction from the rank and file, a department-initiated complaint when
direct supervisors and commanders refuse to do so in the event of egregious
acts of misconduct and policy violations. The GOM should also compel
direct supervisors and commanders to fully cooperate with the IIU in
handling department-initiated complaints.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

13

KCSO Complaint Policies and Procedures
Section
Summary

KCSO needs to expand and enforce its conduct and complaint policies
and procedures to promote accountability. KCSO’s current professional
conduct and complaint policies and procedures need to be expanded to
include important accountability provisions. This section presents Hillard
Heintze’s analyses regarding the adequacy of KCSO’s conduct and
complaint policies and procedures, based on best law enforcement practices,
and KCSO’s compliance with its own policies, procedures, and the national
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies’ standards as
an accredited CALEA agency.
Development of comprehensive, well thought-out, and uniform written
directives is one of the most successful methods for achieving the
administrative and operational goals of law enforcement agencies,
particularly accountability, by providing consistent, documented direction to
all personnel. KCSO’s IIU has a straightforward complaint intake,
investigation, review, and close out process detailed in its SOPs (Appendix 4
contains a flowchart and general overview of the IIU complaint process).
Finding 3: KCSO's GOM and the IIU's SOPs Were Not Effective
in Providing Direction to Commissioned Personnel, or in
Compelling KCSO Management to Consistently Enforce the
Complaint Policies Necessary to Achieve Organizational and
Officer Accountability.

Some
Complaints Did
Not Come to
Attention of IIU
Field Command
Staff or Sheriff

Although KCSO developed and regularly updated its GOM and SOPs, these
directives were not sufficiently comprehensive across all organizational
units, nor were the directives consistently adhered to by officers and
supervisors on a department-wide basis. The result is that some complaints
did not come to the attention of IIU, command staff, or the Sheriff to ensure
that remedial action was taken to prevent future complaints and that
organizational improvements were made to strengthen KCSO policies and
practices.
Examples of GOM issues identified include the absence of language
specifying the responsibilities and actions required by supervisors and the
chain of command in various phases of complaint processing, as well as the
absence of any provisions for failure to supervise or comply with the GOM.
GOM Section 3.03.015, Procedures for Accepting Misconduct Complaints,
does not address the specific actions a supervisor or officer must take when
misconduct is observed or a complaint is brought forward within an
operations unit. Nor does the GOM address the consequences of failing to
report a complaint through the chain of command to ensure consistent
reporting of all complaints and encourage better complaint management.
According to Hillard Heintze, best practices in law enforcement generally
specify the types of inaction that indicate a supervisor’s failure to take action

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

14

KCSO Complaint Policies and Procedures
and the types of formal discipline that could result if complaints are not
reported and departmental policies and procedures are not enforced.
Specific Policies
and Best
Practices Were
Not Established
to Promote
KCSO
Accountability

In addition, neither the GOM nor SOPs contain specific policies that are
consistent with national standards and best practices by leading law
enforcement agencies for officer-involved shootings. For example, KCSO
has not yet established a protocol to notify the IIU Commander immediately
in the event of an officer-involved shooting (OIS), nor is the IIU Commander
required to respond to the scene of the shooting to monitor events on behalf
of the Sheriff.
Examples of the procedural issues identified include varying practices for
reporting and investigating complaints depending upon the organizational
location of the misconduct incident. Because the IIU SOPs are generally for
the internal use of IIU, investigation practices at individual worksites depend
on supervisor adherence to complaint investigation training. For example,
supervisors in some organizational units did not consistently report
misconduct cases through the chain of command to the IIU, including
misconduct cases that were handled by supervisors in some field units and
supervisors under contract to suburban cities that have developed unique
agency misconduct policies and procedures.
According to the IIU Commander, the IIU was not perceived and used by
many supervisors as the central agent and depository of misconduct
complaints as required by the GOM and SOPs. Approximately 100 “lower
level” complaints that the IIU referred back to field unit supervisors for
investigation were determined to be “missing” (i.e., entered into the system
but not actively followed up on in the field). Although many of these
incidents are reportedly minor and technical (e.g., work tardiness), the
volume of missing complaints suggests that neither field supervisors nor the
chain of command are complying with KCSO policies designed to promote
accountability. Clearer guidelines, specifying how the IIU and other
organizational units will track, approve, and document complaint
investigations when complaints are assigned to the field supervisors for
investigation or review, are needed. Until such guidelines are available and
enforced, IIU will be unable to review the adequacy of supervisory
complaint investigations to determine whether the complaint process was
complete or require further investigation.
Based on the review of a sample of complaint investigations, Hillard Heintze
also found that the IIU and assigned field investigators did not consistently
comply with GOM Section 3.03.175. That section outlines an investigative
report format for misconduct cases requiring the following information and
format:
 Accused Member Allegations
 Evidence
 Persons Interviewed

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

15

KCSO Complaint Policies and Procedures



Investigative Steps
Summary

Of the 14 random cases reviewed by Hillard Heintze, few contained
sufficient documentation to comply with the GOM format. Many case files
did not contain significant documentation of any kind. The majority of the
cases also lacked sufficient documentation of the rationale underlying the
final case dispositions or resolution prior to closure. Conflicting or confusing
entries were also noted in the IAPro database, which detracted from the
logical progression of what actually occurred as the case was investigated
and closed. In several cases, the entries in the IAPro database were also
incomplete. For one complaint, no entries were made in IAPro other than the
assigned complaint number. Detailed requirements about what to include in
the investigative report should be codified in this GOM section, with clear
requirements for who is responsible for completing, forwarding, and
reviewing such reports through the chain of command to the IIU.
Absence of
DepartmentWide Policy to
Ensure Adequate
Reporting
Precludes
Proactive
Policing

The absence of a department-wide policy ensuring that all complaint data is
consistently reported, tracked, and forwarded to IIU—including minor
matters handled by field supervisors—eliminates management’s ability to
utilize this data in developing training and procedures for improved
performance. KCSO management is aware of the importance of consistent
complaint practices and recently revised the GOM to now require the IIU to
initially review all complaints, inquiries, non-investigative matters relating to
citizen concerns, and supervisor action logs relating to alleged or observed
minor policy infractions. The policy change is intended to avoid the
possibility that an important complaint or concern was not adequately
addressed due to misclassification or incomplete information about an
incident in the field.
Finding 4: Several of KCSO’s Policies and Practices Were Not
Consistent with the Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies’ (CALEA) Standards for Accredited Law
Enforcement Agencies.
The accreditation standards of the CALEA
require departments to develop comprehensive,
well thought-out, and uniform written directives,
and to operationally adhere to these directives.
CALEA was established in 1979 for the purpose
of strengthening the accountability of public
safety agencies, both within the agency and the
community, through a continuum of standards
that clearly define performance authorities and
responsibilities. As a CALEA-accredited
department, KCSO is responsible for consistently
conforming to CALEA standards.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

16

KCSO Complaint Policies and Procedures
Noteworthy mandatory CALEA standards related to complaints and the
authority of the IIU Commander include:
 All complaints against the agency or its employees be investigated,
including anonymous complaints;
 Agencies maintain a record of all complaints against it and its employees
and protect the confidentiality of these records; and
 The IIU Commander has authority to report directly to the agency’s
chief.
An important question arises regarding the application and relevance of the
standards. Why is it important for law enforcement agencies to ensure that
their internal affairs units embrace best practices?
 First, because the ethics and integrity of a law enforcement agency reside
in its internal investigations unit.
 Second, when the ethical center of the agency is strong and purposeful in
carrying out its responsibilities, the balance of its impact on the culture of
the organization can expand beyond mere complaint investigation to
deterrence of performance issues and, by extension, prevention of
complaints.
 And third, when the internal investigations function is strong, community
trust in the law enforcement agency grows. Community trust is critical to
agency effectiveness in preventing and solving crimes.
KCSO May No
Longer Be in
Compliance with
Some CALEA
Standards

The issues in the complaint policies and procedures identified in Finding 3
suggest that KCSO is no longer in compliance with mandatory CALEA
standards for processing and investigating complaints. Nor is KCSO in
compliance with the CALEA standard for the reporting relationship between
the IIU Commander and the Sheriff.
The overwhelming majority of law enforcement agencies across the country
eliminate any “middle-man” in the communication chain between internal
affairs and the Sheriff, both to elevate the reputation and importance of the
function and to ensure that the Sheriff is as informed as possible concerning
the critical issues associated with misconduct complaints and investigations.
Currently, the KCSO IIU Commander answers directly to a non-sworn
county employee—the Professional Standards Manager (PSM). The PSM
plays a critical role as the manager responsible for overseeing the interrelated
components of the accountability system. The 2012 Professional Standards
Division organization chart shows a dotted line between the IIU Commander
and the Sheriff, able to meet on an as-needed basis. However, neither the
PSM nor the IIU Commander was reported to consistently meet with the
Sheriff on a daily or weekly basis. Although the PSM is a highly competent,
well-respected KCSO manager, the fact that the IIU Commander—as a
sworn officer—does not report directly to the Sheriff calls into question the
importance of IIU in the eyes of the organization (see Appendix 3 for the
most recent KCSO Professional Standards Division organization chart).

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

17

KCSO Complaint Policies and Procedures
Based on the stakeholder interviews with KCSO staff, King County strives
to provide professional law enforcement and oversight services to the
county’s residents. KCSO’s efforts to become CALEA-accredited in 2011
confirm a commitment to implementing effective policies and best practices.
Hillard Heintze noted that the newly appointed Sheriff quickly initiated an
effort to provide commanders around-the-clock responsibility and control for
geographic sectors of the county, opining that the effort is likely to result in a
more proactive approach to identify, report, and handle complaints. As
explained by Hillard Heintze, when commanders have authority over what
happens in a geographical area at all times, the sense of ownership by them
and their staff generally increases the overall level of accountability. KCSO
must consistently adhere to its GOM and SOPs on a department-wide basis
to ensure that CALEA accreditation is maintained and accountability is
assured both within the agency and to the community.
Recommendation 4

KCSO should develop more detailed GOM and SOPs that outline the exact
reporting and investigation processes for complaints; these detailed polices
should become the standard that is adhered to by officers and supervisors
throughout the department.

Recommendation 5

KCSO should review the current CALEA standards, identify any gaps in its
GOM and SOPs, and commit to addressing them prior to the scheduled 2013
CALEA reaccreditation process to ensure full CALEA compliance and
ongoing accreditation, including:
a) Standards for complaint processing and investigation for all complaints,
including anonymous complaints; and,
b) Realigning the KCSO command structure to have the IIU Commander
report directly to the Sheriff (see Recommendation 7, below).

Recommendation 6

KCSO should require all complaints to be documented in exactly the same
manner, including the following:
a) A defined template for what elements need to be included in the written
documentation;
b) A clear process identifying who is responsible for completing the
documentation;
c) An established understanding of who is responsible for reviewing the
written documentation and forwarding it up the chain of command to
IIU; and
d) A clear determination that all such documents should be centrally
stored in one common location: the IIU.

Recommendation 7

KCSO should modify the position of the IIU Commander in the organization
such that s/he reports directly to the Sheriff and the PSM to avoid losing the
benefits of working with the PSM.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

18

KCSO Accountability Tools
Section
Summary

KCSO does not use accountability tools effectively. Assuming a more
proactive role in holding law enforcement organizations and individual
officers accountable is also important for maintaining public trust. This
section reviews the effectiveness of KCSO’s accountability system in
providing the necessary information and analysis to make informed, factbased management decisions to help achieve organizational objectives and
maintain the public trust. Key accountability tools used by KCSO to promote
accountability include IAPro, Blue Team, and the Early Intervention System
(EIS).
Although KCSO strives to respond well to complaints and promote
accountability, shifting its focus to more proactive steps that everyone,
particularly supervisors, can take to prevent complaints would be beneficial.
KCSO has invested in accountability tools that help in managing valuable
information, which can support KCSO in readily identifying the main causes
of performance issues, updating training priorities to help reduce complaints,
and determining areas where supervisors could take a more proactive role in
mentoring and counseling officers to help ensure a consistent level of quality
service from all sworn personnel.
Background on KCSO Accountability System Tools

Blue Team
Software Allows
for Streamlined
Complaint
Intake and
Tracking

IAPro performance tracking software promotes professionalism in law
enforcement agencies by providing a central employee performance
database. It tracks complaints and commendations, investigations and
dispositions, and significant incidents such as uses of force and vehicle
pursuits. Blue Team is an IAPro Web portal supporting patrol supervisors
and field commanders for streamlined intake and follow-up of incidents
(e.g., complaints, uses of force, vehicle accidents, etc.) in the field. Blue
Team also allows for recording policy violations and/or commendations
received from citizens or the chain of command, and entering supervisory
notes concerning employee performance to aid in conducting formal
employee performance evaluations.
The EIS is an IAPro tool that alerts supervisors of potentially problematic
work performance, facilitating officer intervention with counseling or
training before the performance manifests in disciplinary issues. Like most
law enforcement agencies, KCSO uses a combination of incidents as EIS
alert triggers: complaints, uses of force, vehicle accidents, and vehicle
pursuits. The system automatically issues alerts for officers with five or more
complaints or incidents (or three of any one incident type) within a rolling
90-day period.4

4
Early intervention systems may also alert departments to broader policy or performance issues that need to be addressed through
revised policies and/or procedures or department-wide training to ensure a common understanding of expected performance. The
systems may also encourage supervisory behavior changes.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

19

KCSO Accountability Tools
Blue Team has seven different incident types: Inquiries, Non-Investigative
Matters (NIMs), Supervisory Action Logs (SALs), Uses of Force, Vehicle
Accidents, Vehicle Pursuits, and Commendations. All incidents are entered
into Blue Team by a supervisor, except pursuits, which are entered by the
primary officer. A single event or series can result in multiple incidents. For
example, a vehicle pursuit ending in an accident in which an officer
“tazered” a combative suspect would require three Blue Team entries for the
pursuit, accident, and use of force incidents.
Three types of incidents address allegations (i.e., assertions of officer
misconduct or policy violations). A complaint alleging officer misconduct is
an inquiry; a complaint that does not allege misconduct is a NIM. SALs
document actions taken by supervisors for minor policy infractions by
officers.

Well-Maintained
Blue Team
Database Is
Useful for
Compiling and
Managing
Complaints

The data from each incident entered in Blue Team is maintained within the
IAPro database, and can be used to compile informational statistics for
KCSO management. Similarly, an EIS alert is triggered by incidents entered
into the IAPro database; however, IIU does not know which officers have
received an EIS alert or for what incidents. The Human Resource Analyst
routes EIS alerts to the appropriate operational supervisor, but not to IIU.

Although the IIU “manages” the IAPro database information, it is important
to distinguish between incidents and complaints or allegations. Incidents are
the officer actions that must be documented in Blue Team; complaints or
allegations are assertions of officer actions outside those permitted by law or
policy. Per KCSO GOM 6.01.040, IIU's Responsibilities, the IIU can only
"investigate use of force incidents if a policy violation is alleged." IIU cannot
King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight
20

KCSO Accountability Tools
allege the policy violation themselves. Thus, a “Use of Force” incident may
document a use of force that occurred, but IIU review and investigation of a
policy violation in that use of force incident requires a parallel complaint or
allegation (i.e., an allegation incident entered in Blue Team) or a direct
citizen complaint.
Finding 5: KCSO Implemented An Accountability System, but
Underutilization of System Tools Impacts Their Effectiveness in
Improving Accountability Department-Wide.
Optimum Use of
IAPro Could
Help KCSO
Achieve Greater
Accountability

KCSO implemented the IAPro accountability system in 2009. Although
KCSO fully implemented the EIS by the end of 2009, it is still in the process
of institutionalizing the use of Blue Team. KCSO could optimize the use of
the IAPro system to achieve greater efficiency and improve accountability
throughout KCSO, and particularly for field operations.
Three factors currently limit the effectiveness of KCSO’s utilization of
IAPro, including Blue Team and the EIS. First, as discussed in Finding 1,
inconsistent and incomplete complaint documentation is entered into the
IAPro database that supports the EIS. In some cases, no information was
entered into the system for complaints generated and investigated by field
supervisors. In other cases, complaints were correctly entered into the
system, but critical information about the results of complaint investigations
and final dispositions were not. Factors contributing to the database’s lack of
complete data are that some field supervisory and command personnel have
not been trained to
use the
EIS INTERVENTIONS
IAPro/Blue Team
Verbal Counseling
29
system, and
Performance Improvement Plan
15
frequently do not
Written Reprimand
1
return field
complaint
Corrective Counseling Memo
6
documents to the
Punctuality Memo Given
1
IIU along with the
Termination
1
necessary
Total Number of Formal Interventions
53
investigative and
5
July 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011.
case closure
information.
Again, the failure to document these incidents and forward the necessary
information to IIU to review before it is entered into IAPro diminishes
KCSO’s ability to manage, track, and report on complaint issues effectively.
Second, the EIS only utilizes the complaint and incident data within IAPro
for a rolling 90-day period. As discussed earlier, this rolling 90-day period
was established to gain rank-and-file support for implementing the Early
Intervention System and is a specific provision in the collective bargaining

5

From King County Sheriff’s Office IAPro database, 2011.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

21

KCSO Accountability Tools
agreement with the King County Police Officers Guild. However, a 90-day
rolling period for retention of complaint and incident data is not consistent
with best law enforcement practices because it is too short a duration for the
system to provide the necessary trend analysis to help identify employees
who have potential performance issues. According to a Department of
Justice survey on early intervention systems, 76 percent of the surveyed
agencies established a one-year complaint and incident data period for
intervention.
Training
Opportunities
Need to Be
Expanded to
Support Officers
and Comply with
State and
County Policies

Third, the effectiveness of the EIS is limited because such systems operate
on the assumption that training, as part of the basic intervention strategy, will
help officers improve their performance. The primary goal of early
intervention systems is to change the behavior of individual officers—yet
KCSO does not offer “customized” training to address specific officer
behaviors. Interviewees reported that KCSO has not had sufficient training
funds to support customized training for individual officers. The state of
Washington mandates that all commissioned officers receive 24 hours of
training annually; to meet this requirement KCSO largely depends on free
law enforcement training programs offered by the state and other local
governments, as well as on a series of prepackaged electronic training
modules that officers access from their workstations and mobile computers.
The electronic training, however, does not meet the minimum standards for
tactical weapons training required by the state. It is our understanding that
the KCSO Sheriff recently secured additional funds for tactical training, but
opportunities for customized training needs are still limited.
KCSO’s Blue Team application was only recently put into place and is not
yet fully implemented. KCSO supervisors use Blue Team to forward good
and bad information about employees through the chain of command. While
the process to input information into the system appears to be simple and
effective, some KCSO supervisors, particularly first-line supervisors, have
not taken advantage of the system’s capabilities. In fact, Hillard Heintze
questioned whether supervisors fully recognize their role in reporting and
documenting work-related issues and making decisions about discipline
rather than passing the hard decisions on to the captains to avoid conflicts
with subordinates.
All KCSO supervisors and command personnel must use the Blue Team
system to generate real-time data that would facilitate early intervention
counseling with department members who are receiving unusual numbers of
complaints. A strong effort to ensure all supervisors are trained and routinely
use the Blue Team system by documenting both good and bad behavior, and
by ensuring that such information is routed automatically to both an
employee’s chain of command as well as to IIU, would be a positive step.
Finally, KCSO could be utilizing the Blue Team application more effectively
by entering performance and incident information into a streamlined

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

22

KCSO Accountability Tools
template to facilitate processing of lower-level citizen or internal complaints
that may be handled efficiently and quickly at the first-line supervisor level.
The advantage of other KCSO sergeants outside of the IIU entering
complaints into Blue Team is that it reduces the workload on IIU
investigators, particularly for lower-level misconduct violations. It also
increases the supervisors’ awareness of individuals and work-related
activities that are generating complaints, thereby allowing them to address
the problems.
The complaint information entered into the Blue Team system would still be
accessible in the IAPro system for early intervention purposes. In fact,
broader utilization of the Blue Team application, along with an increased
focus on system training for sergeants and other supervisors, would
ultimately improve the overall effectiveness of the KCSO early intervention
system. Enhancements to the system would allow KCSO to manage the
Early Intervention counseling protocol more effectively, as well as provide
data that can help to prioritize training to address behaviors that generate
complaints.
Training Is a Key
Tool in
Proactively
Managing
Behaviors that
Can Lead to
Complaints

One new and promising development is that KCSO, in conjunction with the
Seattle Police Department and Washington State Basic Law Enforcement
Academy, received a U.S. Department of Justice grant to provide procedural
justice training for the King County’s commissioned personnel. The grant
will provide officer training on assessing the risks involved in a particular
incident and using alternative, less aggressive responses, if appropriate given
the circumstances. Ongoing professional training both for new officers, as
well as for supervisors and commanders, is a key tool for proactively
managing work behaviors that can lead to complaints.

Recommendation 8

KCSO should explore opportunities to extend the 90-day rolling period for
maintaining complaint and incident data to a one-year period to improve the
completeness and effectiveness of its trend analysis and reports disseminated
to officials and the public.

Recommendation 9

KCSO should outline policies and procedures for supervisors that will
increase the variety of data that must be entered into the Blue Team system
and forwarded to IIU, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the KCSO
Early Intervention System and Blue Team application.

Recommendation 10

KCSO should consider using a template that facilitates Blue Team entry,
review, and approval of selected lower-level citizen complaints, which can
be handled efficiently and quickly at the first-line supervisor level, and
forwarded for entry into the IAPro system for tracking and early intervention
purposes.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

23

KCSO Accountability Tools
Recommendation 11

KCSO should provide ongoing training to all supervisors on the effective use
of the Blue Team system, as well as ongoing training on how to investigate
and document misconduct complaints and inquiries using the Investigative
Report Format outlined in GOM Section 3.03.175 and the Blue Team
template.

Recommendation 12

KCSO should also explore opportunities to expand its own training
resources, or identify training programs in other jurisdictions, to address the
main cause of “recurring” performance issues within the department.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

24

Implementing Law Enforcement Oversight
Section
Summary

Implementation of law enforcement oversight hampered by labor issues.
Efforts to implement civilian oversight in King County have been hampered
by labor and legal issues—from the policy development phase to the
collaborative efforts of the new OLEO Director and the Sheriff to launch an
effective oversight function. However, current law enforcement research and
best practices overwhelmingly consider citizen oversight to have greater
legitimacy than internal police agency systems alone in promoting public
trust in the communities they serve. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
provides a framework that could be useful in addressing some issues
experienced by King County, which were common to those of nine other
jurisdictions that previously established civilian oversight functions.6 The
NIJ study also found that the talent, fairness, dedication, and flexibility of the
key participants were ultimately more important to the success of police
oversight than the structure of the oversight system.
Background on Establishment of the King County Office of Law
Enforcement Oversight
In January 2006, King County Council introduced Ordinance 15611 to
establish the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight (OLEO) to provide input
to KCSO on whether its practices for handling misconduct complaints were
thorough, fair, objective, and consistent with department policies and
procedures. The ordinance, adopted in October 2006, also established
additional functions relating to civilian oversight of the KCSO.
In March 2006, KCSO Sheriff Susan Rahr initiated a separate, but parallel,
review of the KCSO’s professional policing practices and complaint
processes. Sheriff Rahr established a Blue Ribbon Panel, comprised of other
county officials and prominent community stakeholders, to conduct research
into other law enforcement agencies’ operations and internal investigations
methods. Members of the King County Council and the Blue Ribbon Panel
also toured and researched efforts in other cities to establish civilian
oversight of law enforcement agencies.

OLEO
Established to
Promote Public
Trust in Law
Enforcement

Most of Ordinance 15611 was repealed by the King County Council as a
condition of the 2008 to 2013 collective bargaining agreement between King
County and the Police Guild. On May 11, 2009, the County Council passed
Ordinance 16511 modifying the oversight authority of OLEO within the
King County Legislative Branch. OLEO’s primary functions are to: (1) serve
as an alternative forum where a citizen complaint may be filed; (2) review
the investigation of misconduct, use of force, and other KCSO personnel
complaints; and (3) promote transparency and accountable policing in the
Sheriff’s Office. The OLEO Director’s direct reporting relationship to the
King County Council—and enhanced level of civilian oversight—was

6

Finn, Peter, Citizen Review of Police: Approaches and Implementation, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2001.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

25

Implementing Law Enforcement Oversight
expected to improve the community’s trust in the KCSO’s management of
citizen-initiated and internally-generated complaint cases.
On September 19, 2011, the King County Council confirmed Charles
Gaither as the first OLEO Director. He previously oversaw detectives and
police performance auditors assigned to the Los Angeles Police
Department’s (LAPD) Force Investigation Division and Internal Audits and
Inspections Division; as a postal inspector with the United States Postal
Inspection Service; and as a police officer with LAPD. He also has a law
degree from the Seattle University School of Law, and a master’s degree in
public policy and administration and bachelor’s degree in criminal justice
from California State University, Long Beach.
Benefits Achieved Through Effective Law Enforcement Oversight
Oversight
Benefits
Organization,
Officers, and
Community

Since the 1990s, a growing number of communities have established civilian
oversight like the OLEO in King County’s legislative branch as an
independent role to help maintain the community’s trust in its law
enforcement agency’s internal affairs processes.7 By the mid-2000s, threefourths of the police agencies in a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) review
had already implemented civilian oversight of law enforcement conduct
among a variety of models. Both police agencies and communities generally
agree that the primary benefit of effective civilian oversight of law
enforcement agencies is maintaining community trust in their operations.
Some additional benefits identified by nine jurisdictions with civilian law
enforcement oversight functions in a 2001 NIJ report include:
Police and Sheriff’s department administrators have reported that citizen
oversight:




Improved their relationship and image with the community.
Strengthened the quality of the department’s internal investigations of
alleged officer misconduct and reassured the public that the process is
thorough and fair.
Made valuable policy and procedure recommendations.

Local elected and appointed officials reported that an oversight procedure:



Enabled them to demonstrate their concern to eliminate police
misconduct.
Reduced in some cases the number of civil lawsuits (or successful suits)
against their jurisdictions.

7
Kenney, Dennis Jay and Robert P. McNamara. Police and Policing: Contemporary Issues. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1999; see
also Building Public Confidence Through Civilian Oversight, Vera Institute of Justice, September 2002 and Civilian Oversight of
Policing: Lessons From the Literature, Vera Institute of Justice, May 2002.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

26

Implementing Law Enforcement Oversight
Complainants reported that they:




Felt “validated” when the oversight body agrees with their allegations or
when they have an opportunity to be heard by an independent overseer
regardless of the outcome.
Were satisfied at being able to express their concerns in person to the
officer.
Felt they are contributing to holding the department accountable for
officers’ behavior.

The law enforcement oversight model adopted for King County is consistent
with one of four common models established by the jurisdictions surveyed
by the NIJ. Essentially, the OLEO Director and his staff are responsible for
reviewing the Sheriff’s Office processes for managing and investigating
complaints, and reporting on the thoroughness and fairness of the process to
the Sheriff’s Office and the public. This model is cost effective and can
directly benefit police officers by: 1) increasing the public’s understanding
of police work, including the use of force, 2) helping the subject officers feel
vindicated, and 3) helping to discourage misconduct complaints.
Finding 6: Organizational, Legal, and Labor Issues Have
Hampered Effective Oversight in King County.
Perceived
Independence of
Oversight
Function Is a
Critical Factor

Different models feature different organizational placement for the civilian
oversight function. As discussed in the NIJ report, the perceived
independence of the civilian oversight function is the critical factor to
complainants.8 Expected improvements in community trust of KCSO from
civilian oversight may not result if the OLEO is not seen as autonomous.
Unique to King County, however, are collective bargaining agreement
provisions conditioning the employment of the OLEO Director and their
staff on the CBA with the overseen officers. The apparent contractual
authority of an arbitrator (who might find that the director has violated the
civilian oversight provisions of the CBA) to order the termination of the
OLEO Director as a possible remedy may present a serious threat to its
potential success.
As shown in the Chronology of Events leading to the establishment of law
enforcement oversight in King County, the efforts of the King County
Council, former and current Sheriff, and the OLEO Director to establish and
implement effective civilian oversight for the Sheriff’s Office have been met
with strong resistance and grievances by the Police Guild.

8

Finn, Peter, Citizen Review of Police: Approaches and Implementation, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2001; pg.
129.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

27

Implementing Law Enforcement Oversight
EXHIBIT A: Office of Law Enforcement Oversight Chronology of Major Events
Date 
January 2006 
September 2006 
September 2006 
October 2006 
October 2006 

November 2007 

December 2008 

December 2008 

May 2009 

May 2009 

January 2010 

January 2010 

September 2011 

May 2012 
June 2012 

Action Taken
Metropolitan King County Council introduces Ordinance 15611 relating to civilian oversight of 
the King County Sheriff’s Office. 
Sheriff publishes Report of the King County Sheriff’s Blue Ribbon Panel recommending the 
King County Executive and County Council create and fund an Office of Independent 
Oversight. 
County Council adopts Motion 12337 adopting the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations 
including the recommendation to establish civilian oversight. 
County Council adopts Ordinance 15611 establishing an Office of Law Enforcement Oversight
and other oversight functions. 
King County Police Officer’s Guild filed a Public Employment Relations Commission Unfair 
Labor Practice (PERC ULP) 20691‐U‐06‐5273 against King County by passing civilian review 
legislation without fulfilling its obligation to bargain mandatory subjects with the Guild. 
King County and Police Guild finalizes agreement that Ordinance 15611 would be treated as 
labor policy and would be bargained in good faith. The Police Guild dismissed its unfair labor 
practice charge against the County. 
County Council adopts Ordinance 16327 approving a new five‐year collective bargaining 
agreement between the County and Police Officer’s Guild. The collective bargaining 
agreement required the County to repeal most of Ordinance 15611. 
County Council adopts Motion 12892 establishing labor policy in relation to civilian oversight 
of King County law enforcement and reaffirming its commitment to establish a system of 
oversight as outlined in Ordinance 15611. 
County Council adopts Ordinance 16511 establishing an Office of Law Enforcement Oversight 
(OLEO) conforming to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiated by the County 
and the Police Guild.  
The Police Guild files a grievance under Article 12 of the CBA alleging that the County violated 
provisions of Article 22 by passing Ordinance 16511 that conflicts with specific language in 
Article 22. 
King County and the Police Guild approve Settlement Agreement that requires OLEO 
employees to comply with Article 22 of the CBA as a condition of employment and that an 
arbitrator could order the removal of OLEO employees as a possible remedy including the 
OLEO Director for not complying with the terms of the CBA.  
King County and the Police Guild also consent in the same Settlement Agreement that, in the 
event of an actual conflict, between Ordinance 16511 and CBA Article 22 provisions cited in 
the Settlement Agreement that the CBA Article 22 language will prevail as a matter of law 
under RCW 41.56.095. 
The King County Council confirms its first OLEO Director, who previously served as a special 
investigator and police auditor in the Los Angeles Police Department. The OLEO Director was 
initially screened and recommended to the Council by selection committee that included 
Police Guild representation.  
Despite invitations from the Sheriff to OLEO to participate as an observer in internal KCSO 
review meetings, the Police Guild files multiple grievances against the new OLEO Director. 
These grievances are still pending review as of June 2012. 
The King County Council adopts a new labor policy, LP2012‐033, relating to civilian oversight 
of the Sheriff’s Office.  

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

28

Implementing Law Enforcement Oversight
Significant Labor
Union Resistance
to Oversight

Soon after the adoption of the second ordinance establishing civilian
oversight, Ordinance 16511, the Police Guild filed a grievance under
Article 12 of the 2008 collective bargaining agreement alleging that the
ordinance conflicted with specific language in CBA Article 22. (See
Appendix 5 for a more complete comparison of the oversight responsibilities
authorized in Ordinance 15611, which was rescinded, and the oversight
responsibilities authorized in Ordinance 16511 that is now in effect.) In
January 2010 the parties negotiated a settlement to the Guild’s grievance that
included:
1. The ability of an arbitrator to order the removal of the OLEO Director or
OLEO staff as a possible remedy for violating the terms of Article 22 of
the collective bargaining agreement.
2. The Council’s intent to avoid conflict between Ordinance 16511 and the
collective bargaining agreement, and a concurrence of both parties that
the terms of the collective bargaining agreement would prevail in the
event of an unintentional conflict.
3. The settlement MOA became effective upon the signature of the Guild
and HR representatives and would remain effective until January 2012.
As also noted in Exhibit A above, the Police Guild has filed three grievances
against the OLEO Director this year for attending the IIU Advisory Group
and administrative briefings regarding officer-involved shootings. The
OLEO Director attended the shooting briefings at the request of the Sheriff;
the Police Guild grieved the OLEO Director’s attendance at a briefing after
the KCSO legal advisor clarified with the president of the Police Guild that
his attendance was acceptable.

Council Adopts
New Labor
Policy to
Support OLEO’s
Effectiveness

On June 18, 2012, the King County Council adopted a new labor policy,
LP2012-033, regarding civilian oversight of the Sheriff’s Office. The policy
supports OLEO’s authority to:
1. Identify systemic problems and opportunities for improvement, and offer
recommendations to address those problems and make improvements;
2. Review and assess internal investigations of complaints, misconduct,
uses of force, and critical incidents and other matters as more fully
described in the OLEO operational plan . . .to ensure the thoroughness,
objectivity, and adequacy of those investigations and any resultant
discipline;
3. Audit internal investigation operations and any other operations, policies,
and practices of the King County Sheriff’s Office necessary to carry out
the goals and purposes of OLEO set forth herein or in the OLEO
operational plan . . . ;
4. Have unimpeded and timely access to case information, investigations,
scenes of critical incidents, and other meetings and operations as
necessary to carry out the OLEO operational plan . . . ; and

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

29

Implementing Law Enforcement Oversight
5. Conduct community outreach related to complaint and investigations
processes and public perceptions of KCSO to increase understanding,
confidence, and trust between KCSO and the public.
Pending the outcome of labor negotiations between the King County and the
Police Guild, the County Council may wish to consider embodying the
language of the labor policy in Chapter 2.75 of the King County Code.
Defining the Role and Authority of OLEO and Building Effective
Working Relationships
Establishing trust between the civilian oversight agency and the KCSO is
fundamental to its success. Implementation of civilian oversight functions in
other jurisdictions have typically created challenges as the law enforcement
agency—both among management and front-line officers—and the civilian
oversight official resolve questions regarding roles and responsibilities. The
additional independent oversight initially generates some resistance from the
overseen agency, but typically progresses into collaboration as its positive
benefits accrue to the overseen agency and the community.
One of the greatest challenges in successfully setting up the new Office of
Law Enforcement Oversight is the uncertainty as to the power and authority
of the new OLEO Director. Involving representatives of all concerned parties
in the planning of the new oversight procedures is one of the most productive
steps that can be taken to significantly reduce conflict. Clarifying and
accepting that the mission of oversight is to provide for citizen—not
professional—review is another important step, as well as establishing clear,
measurable objectives for the oversight function.
KCSO and
OLEO
Collaborating on
Development of
Working
Guidelines

Without working guidelines specifying what OLEO can and cannot do, the
OLEO Director’s position will continue to be at risk. Beginning with the
King County Code, the legal authority for developing these guidelines needs
to be clarified and enhanced. Such guidelines will not only provide clear
lines of authority for the OLEO Director, but will also serve as best practices
for many years of collaborative give-and-take between OLEO and KCSO.
The Portland Police Auditor and Tucson Independent Police Auditor are two
agencies that have implemented oversight models similar to King County
and could potentially offer resources that could be beneficial in developing
working oversight guidelines.
Why Progressive Law Enforcement Agencies Are Embracing the
Formal Mediation Process
Another major opportunity for the OLEO Director to build effective working
relationships and trust with the Sheriff’s Office and Police Guild would be to
shift the immediate focus of oversight to launching the voluntary officercitizen mediation program. The mediation program provides an alternative

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

30

Implementing Law Enforcement Oversight
method for resolving select citizen complaints by allowing willing citizens
and officers to meet under the guidance of a professional mediator to discuss
and resolve their differences.9
Formal
Mediation Is an
Efficient
Alternative for
Handling Lower
Level
Complaints

Formal mediation is an oversight function authorized in both
Ordinance 16511 and CBA Article 22, with potential benefits for
complainants, deputies, and KCSO. The OLEO Director is responsible for
administering the mediation program in King County, and, in conjunction
with the Sheriff’s Office, has already begun drafting standards and
guidelines for determining when a particular complaint may be referred to
mediation. Numerous law enforcement agencies in the nation are embracing
the concept of a formal mediation process, including the cities of Portland
and Tucson that have similar oversight models. In most agencies, it is typical
that the complainant and deputy, with the department’s approval, must agree
to engage in the mediation before it proceeds. If an agreement is not reached,
then a regular IIU investigation is initiated and completed, which could
expose a deputy to formal discipline.
The advantage of formal mediation to a deputy is that the process allows a
complaint to proceed without subjecting the deputy to potential formal
discipline. The deputy also has the opportunity to learn just what it was he or
she may have done to cause the complaint; hence, learning how to avoid
such results in the future. The advantage to a complainant is that the case can
potentially be resolved more quickly, and the complainant has the
opportunity to explain to the deputy why s/he took issue with the deputy’s
actions. The advantage to the department is that complainant can usually get
satisfaction and possibly closure more quickly for a given complaint, which
contributes to positive community relations between the department and the
community. The department is also able to reduce the amount of time spent
conducting full-length IIU investigations for lower-level complaints that can
be resolved more quickly. The formal mediation process still affords the
department the ability to track complaints against individual deputies
through the early intervention system.
Additional Opportunities and Benefits to Strengthen OLEO’s and
KCSO’s Working Relationship
As OLEO and KCSO gain more experience working together to improve
police accountability and public trust, additional opportunities are likely to
surface to strengthen interagency cooperation and trust. These include:



9

Highlighting that that OLEO agrees with KCSO’s findings in the vast
majority of complaint cases (if appropriate).
Reassuring skeptical citizens that KCSO is managing citizen complaints
responsibly—in general or in relation to specific cases.

Serious complaints are excluded from the use of mediation to resolve allegations.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

31

Implementing Law Enforcement Oversight



Publicizing high-profile cases in which OLEO has sided with the subject
officer.
Sitting down and resolving any misconceptions and conflicts
immediately and face-to-face.

Finally, it should be noted that even though a citizen oversight system may
not deter law enforcement misconduct more than internal agency review,
citizen oversight systems are almost universally considered to have greater
legitimacy in the communities they serve.10
Differentiating OLEO’s Mission from Those of Other County
Agencies
With the establishment of OLEO, King County’s legislative branch now
houses three independent oversight agencies: OLEO, the Ombudsman’s
Office, and the King County Auditor’s Office. Both OLEO and the
Ombudsman’s Office are currently authorized to receive and respond to
citizen complaints, and both OLEO and the Auditor’s Office are authorized
to conduct performance audits and evaluations of KCSO operations. All
three agencies have met to discuss and clarify their individual missions,
while recognizing OLEO’s role as the lead agency responsible for
complaints against the Sheriff’s Office and/or its employees. The three
agencies identified methods to avoid duplication of effort.
King County Auditor’s Office Ongoing Review Responsibilities
Section 2.20.037 of the King County Code (KCC) and Ordinance 16511
pertaining to Law Enforcement Audits requires KCAO to conduct periodic
audits of the IIU and OLEO, including an annual written report to the
County Council. KCC 2.20.037 (D) further obligates KCSO to “. . . send any
audits and reports produced under the sheriff's authority on investigation
and complaint operations and performance to the auditor's office. The
reports shall be transmitted in a timely manner.”
KCAO Clarifies
Information
Requirements to
Meet Ongoing
KCSO and
OLEO Reporting
Requirements

Annual implementation progress reports by both KCSO and OLEO would
provide critical information for KCAO’s annual performance audit
requirements. Specifically, we would expect both agencies to provide the
KCAO with detailed reports on when and how they have successfully
implemented the recommendations contained in this and future audits and
annual reports, as well as the impact of those recommendations in improving
the police accountability and best practices as OLEO becomes fully
implemented.
Since the enactment of Ordinance 16511 in 2009, the KCSO has shared its
annual statistical reports with KCAO detailing misconduct and use of force

10

Farrow, Joe, and Pham, Trac. “Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement: Challenge and Opportunity.” Police Chief Magazine
(Alexandria, VA: April 2012).

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

32

Implementing Law Enforcement Oversight
statistics as they became available.11 Based on the recommendations within
this report, we would also ask KCSO to provide annual statistical reports that
specifically identify:





Allegations, broken down by incident classification (i.e., inquiry, NIM,
SAL), source, and unit;
Misconduct complaints, broken down by incident classification, source,
and unit;
Results of misconduct investigations (e.g., sustained, unfounded, etc.);
and
All revisions to the KCSO GOM and/or SOPs.

Identifying the source of allegations and complaints entering the
accountability system will allow KCSO, OLEO, and the KCAO to observe
the reporting trends among field units and IIU over time, and will be useful
in establishing a baseline for ensuring compliance with complaint reporting
requirements and OLEO outreach efforts.
Hillard Heintze Senior Leadership Team Addresses the
Importance of Civilian Oversight
Hillard Heintze
Team Addresses
Practical
Benefits of
OLEO

Given that the Hillard Heintze Senior Leadership Team is comprised of
former top officials from law enforcement agencies at the federal, state and
local levels of government, we choose to end this report with their statement
of the practical benefits of oversight to the agencies they previously
managed:
“Many of us are members of departments that went through what we could
term ‘growing pains’ when our agencies were first confronted with the
equivalent of an OLEO. Over time, most of our rank-and-file members
eventually embraced units like OLEO, recognizing that the collaborative
efforts of an OLEO and a law enforcement agency go a long way to reassure
the public of the fine service provided by the overwhelming majority of a law
enforcement agency’s members.
“Indeed, there have been many occasions when a law enforcement agency
has come under fire for a high-profile incident and OLEO members, who are
seen as neutral by the public, have been able to defend the department
successfully, because they have been allowed to act as a neutral third-party
in monitoring the department’s response to the incident.12 We encourage the
KCSO’s rank-and-file members and the Police Guild to make every effort to
establish a positive and collaborative working relationship with the new
OLEO Director in the shortest timeframe possible to reap the positive

11

See, e.g., “Follow-Up of 2006 King County Sheriff’s Officer Misconduct and Use of Force Complaints” Management Letter,
KCAO June 21, 2011.
12
Finn, Peter. “Getting Along With Civilian Oversight.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. August 2000: 22. Print.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

33

Implementing Law Enforcement Oversight
department and community benefits that typically materialize from such
efforts.”
Recommendation 13

OLEO, in collaboration with KCSO, should continue planning and
developing working guidelines and measurable objectives to assure that the
effectiveness and benefits of law enforcement oversight are maximized.

Recommendation 14

OLEO, in conjunction with KCSO, should take proactive steps to educate
both the public and the rank-and-file members about the formal mediation
program as soon as the program is in place. Both IIU staff and OLEO staff
should offer and explain the program to complainants when they initially
consider filing what could be considered a lower-level complaint.

Recommendation 15

KCSO and OLEO should each submit an annual report detailing progress in
successfully implementing the recommendations in this report and in future
subsequent reports. KCSO should also provide detailed annual statistics
reports on the number, type, and unit location of allegations and complaints
received to allow for greater tracking and analysis of supervisor compliance
with reporting requirements and community outreach efforts.

Recommendation 16

The King County Council may want to consider, pending the outcome of
labor negotiations, embodying features of its newly adopted labor policy
regarding civilian oversight of the Sheriff’s Office in Chapter 2.75 of the
King County Code.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

34

Appendix 1
Executive Summary, Hillard Heintze Performance Audit
King County Sheriff’s Office and
Office of Law Enforcement Oversight
The complete Hillard Heintze Performance Audit Report, including appendices, is available at
the King County Auditor’s Office website:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/auditor/Reports/Year/2012.aspx.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

35

Appendix 1 (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

36

Appendix 1 (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

37

Appendix 1 (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

38

Appendix 1 (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

39

Appendix 1 (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

40

Appendix 1 (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

41

Appendix 1 (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

42

Appendix 2
Hillard Heintze and King County Auditor’s Office
Scope and Methodologies
Audit Scope
The primary audit purposes were to evaluate the current state of Sheriff’s Office internal
investigation operations and practices, and to assess the effectiveness of OLEO in providing
Council-directed oversight of the IIU. Conducted in conjunction with a national law enforcement
consulting firm, Hillard Heintze LLC, this audit included review of national best practices for
managing citizen-initiated and internally-generated police misconduct and use of force
complaints, along with best practices in the integration of civilian oversight into police functions.
The scope of the audit was limited to the evaluation of the Sheriff’s Office internal investigations
and Office of Law Enforcement Oversight functions. The evaluation included the review of
current policies and procedures for handling complaints and misconduct investigations within the
KCSO. We did so by reviewing the following, among other materials:
 KCSO’s General Orders Manual (GOM), particularly Section 2.17.005—Mandatory
Training (see Hillard Heintze’s Performance Audit Report, available at
http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/auditor/Reports/Year/2012.aspx, at Appendix A); and
Section 3.00.000—Personnel Conduct, particularly Section 3.03.175 (Id., at Appendix B)
 IIU’s Standard Operating Procedures manual (revised 1/12/2012—see Hillard Heintze’s
Performance Audit Report, Appendix C)
 Documents describing the creation of OLEO and its role and authorities. This included a
memorandum from newly-appointed OLEO Director Charles Gaither to then-Sheriff Susan
Rahr, dated December 13, 2011, titled “OLEO and the powers granted under Ordinance
16511” (Id., Appendix D)
 Document titled “Office of Law Enforcement Oversight (OLEO)—Proposed Mission and
Enhancements to OLEO’s Authority,” which was provided to us by OLEO Director Gaither
on January 24, 2012 (Id., Appendix E)
 Document titled “King County Signature Report, dated May 12, 2009, Ordinance 16511,”
which revised OLEO’s role and authority (Id., Appendix F)
We also performed a comparative review of the CALEA Standards for Law Enforcement
Agencies, dated November 2010, in relation to KCSO’s General Orders Manual (GOM)
3.00.000—Personnel Conduct and GOM 6.00.000—Use of Force, to determine KCSO’s current
compliance with the relevant CALEA standards and enforcement of the standards.
In addition, we conducted an in-depth, hands-on audit of a random selection of 20 percent of the
73 IIU investigative cases handled or coordinated by IIU during 2011. We reviewed the
investigative files for the two Use of Force cases handled by IIU during 2011. This comparison
afforded us the opportunity to evaluate whether these cases were handled according to IIU’s
written policies and procedures and to the GOM. It also allowed us the opportunity to make
recommendations for improvements to the KCSO process for handling complaints.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

43

Appendix 2 (Continued)
Benchmarking Against Appropriate Best Practices
Our review of KCSO’s written policies and procedures for handling misconduct complaints, as
well as our hands-on audit of IIU investigative cases, allowed us to compare and contrast how
KCSO is currently investigating misconduct complaints with our own experiences, as well as to
compare what KCSO should be doing to conform to best practices for handling misconduct
complaints. Our review of the primary and secondary data we collected also provided an
opportunity to analyze what steps KCSO, OLEO, and the Police Guild may take to enhance their
ability to establish a positive working relationship, based upon the experience working with
entities similar to King County’s OLEO and organized labor groups.
Diligence in Capturing the Insights of Hillard Heintze Senior Leadership Team
Hillard Heintze deemed it imperative that all members of the Hillard Heintze Senior Leadership
Council (SLC) have an opportunity to review and analyze the data collected by SLC members
Rob Davis and Tom Streicher. This provided a detailed review by a number of nationally
recognized law enforcement operations experts with many years of practical law enforcement
experience, including field patrol, investigative, and executive management experience, as well
as expertise in conducting scientific research in the law enforcement field. Hillard Heintze’s
recommendations made throughout their report are based upon the thorough review by the entire
SLC team.
Methodology for Random Selection and Review of Internal Investigations Unit
Cases
To facilitate a detailed review and assessment of the effectiveness of the King County Sheriff’s
Office’s Internal Investigations Unit, SLC member Rob Davis, accompanied at varying times by
members of the King County Auditor’s Office, conducted a random audit of approximately 20
percent of the 73 formal misconduct investigations IIU handled or coordinated for 2011.
On the day of our review, we used a random number generator to select 14 of the 73 misconduct
investigations cases for review. This resulted in an unbiased, representative sample. Some of the
cases generated were hard copy documents contained in a confidential file in the IIU, and
provided for our hands-on review in the IIU facility. Other cases consisted of digital reports and
digital audio files contained within the automated IAPro software program, which we were able
to access via a computer located within the private IIU office.
We made use of a written template created by the SLC to assist in our review of each case—to
ensure we were looking at the same data points for each of the reviewed cases. Below is a list of
data points we tracked on our template, based upon policies and procedures as outlined in IIU’s
Standard Operating Procedures manual (Id., at Appendix C):
General Questions
 Was the initial complaint taken in person, by telephone, or by e-mail?
 Was the case completed within 180 days of reception by a Command Officer (including
disciplinary disposition)?
 Did the IIU Commander review the case and note recommendations?
King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

44

Appendix 2 (Continued)






Did the IIU Commander update IAPro with recommendations from the Chain of Command?
Did the IIU Commander write a Memo to the Subject Officer notifying him/her of the
findings and recommendations in the case?
Was a Loudermill Hearing needed, and was one held?
Did the IIU HR Analyst send a closing letter to the complainant?
Was the case formally closed in IIU’s IAPro database?

Complainant and Witness Interviews
 Was the interview conducted in person or on the telephone?
 Was the interview recorded?
 Was the complainant cooperative?
 Was the complainant allowed to make statements in his/her own words?
 Did the IIU Investigator use any leading questions?
 Did the interview appear to be thorough, objective, and fair?
 If the allegations were of a sensitive nature, was the IIU Investigator sensitive to this during
the interview?
 Was the IIU Investigator of the same gender as the complainant if the complaint was of a
sensitive, sexual nature?
 Did the IIU Investigator ask the complainant if he or she had any questions, or if there was
anything he or she would like to add?
Subject Officer Interview
 Was the interview recorded?
 Did the IIU Investigator advise the subject officer of the need to cooperate, with discipline
possible for any refusal?
 Did the IIU Investigator allow the subject officer to read a copy of the Peace Officer Bill of
Rights/Garrity Rights if requested?
 Did the IIU Investigator use a list of prepared, written questions during the interview, and
was a copy on file in the IIU file?
 Did the IIU Investigator advise the subject officer not to discuss the case after the interview,
with discipline possible if this occurred?
 Did the interview appear to be thorough, fair, and objective?
 Did the IIU Investigator use leading questions?
 Did the IIU Investigator ask the subject officer if he or she had any questions, or if there was
anything he or she would like to add?
 Did the subject officer’s representative seem cooperative and effective during the interview?
Other Issues
 Did any written allegations exist that drew conclusions?
 If necessary, were medical records and photos included in the case file?
 Was any exculpatory evidence investigated?
 Did the final case Write-Up Memo contain all of the components of the Investigative Report
Format as outlined in GOM Section 3.03.175?
 Did the investigator’s Write-Up Memo appear to be thorough, fair, and objective?
.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

45

Appendix 3
King County Sheriff’s Office, Organizational Chart 2012

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

46

Appendix 4
General Overview of the KCSO IIU Complaint Process

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

47

Appendix 5
Comparison of Ordinance 15611 and Ordinance 16511
Revisions Pertaining to Office of Law Enforcement Oversight
Ordinance 15611

Ordinance 16511
Duties and Responsibilities
Section 5A: Receive complaints from any source,
Included in Section 4A: The office shall receive
track complaints received and transmit complaints
complaints from any complaining party concerning
to the Sheriff’s Office IIU.
the Sheriff’s Office; track complaints received and
transmit the complaints to the IIU.
Repealed by Ordinance 16511.
Section 5B: Monitor, check for completeness and
require additional investigations as necessary of all
internal investigations unit activities, including
administrative and employee-initiated complaints
and allegations investigations.
Section 5C: May monitor, check for completeness, Repealed by Ordinance 16511.
evaluate the resolution of and require additional
investigation as necessary of all other complaints
and allegations including those assigned by the IIU
to supervisors for investigation and resolution; and
Repealed by Ordinance 16511.
Section 5D: May review and make
recommendations to the IIU about the screening
and classification of complaints, as well as make
recommendation to the Sheriff about screening and
classification policies and procedures. In addition,
may monitor the complaint intake processes and
evaluate decisions whether a complaint requires
initiation of a formal internal investigation or
assignment to supervisors for investigation or
resolution.
New Section 4A: The office shall receive
complaints from any complaining party concerning
the Sheriff’s Office; track complaints received and
transmit the complaints to the IIU.
New Section 4B: In addition to complaints
received by the office, the IIU shall provide copies
of all other complaints to the office within three
business days.
New Section 4C: The office shall not conduct
independent disciplinary investigations, but may
participate in interviews as provided in KCC
2.75.060.
New Section 4D: The office shall be provided a
copy of any letter or other notification to an officer
informing them of actual discipline imposed as a
result of an internal affairs investigation or the
notice of finding if the complaint is not sustained.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

48

Appendix 5 (Continued)
Ordinance 15611

Ordinance 16511
New Section 4E: The office shall be notified by
the IIU within five business days of the completion
of an internal investigation. The office, in addition
to the Sheriff’s Office written notice of finding
letter to the complainant, may send a closing letter
to the complainant.
Included as Section 5A in Ordinance 16511.

Section 6A: Monitor the investigation and
resolution of all complaints to ensure they are
handled in a timely fashion and complainants are
notified of the final disposition of their complaints.
Section 6B: Coordinate with the Sheriff’s Office in Included as Section 5B in Ordinance 16511.
the development of all technology applications for
tracking and information sharing.
Section 6C: Issue annual reports as of March 2008. Included as Section 5C in Ordinance 16511.
Twelve (12) copies of each report shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Council for distribution to all
Councilmembers. The office shall also retain paper
copies and post the reports on the Internet.
Included as Section 5C(1) in Ordinance 16511. The
Section 6C(1): The annual reports shall include a
second sentence was revised to state: “The reports
statistical analysis of complaints, investigative
should include information about the number and
findings, and final discipline for sustained
complaints. The reports should include information type of misconduct cases in which the director did
not certify that the investigation was thorough and
about the number and type of misconduct case
objective.”
where the director disagreed with the Sheriff on
either findings or discipline decisions.
Included as Section 5C(2) in Ordinance 16511.
Section 6C(2): Make recommendations of action
by the Sheriff on needed improvements in policies,
procedures and practices stemming from analyses
that look beyond the individual cases of
misconduct to identify system problems within the
Sheriff’s Office. In addition to investigation
materials available to the office, the director shall
make use of all other available materials, including
internal and external audits and reviews of the
Sheriff’s Office and critical incident reviews, in
developing and making recommendations for
improvement.
Access, Options, and Collaborations
Section 7A: Unimpeded and real-time access to
Section 6A: Unimpeded and real-time access to
un-redacted case information, and all information
un-redacted case information and all information
related to ongoing investigations files. treating all
related to ongoing investigations files. The only
exception to this subsection is files related to
documents and information regarding specific
ongoing investigations of deputies or other
investigations or officer as required by law. The
Sheriff’s staff who are under criminal investigation.
only exception to this subsection is files related to
The office shall protect all documents and
ongoing investigations of deputies or other
Sheriff’s staff who are under criminal investigation. information regarding specific investigations or
officer as required by law.
Upon completion of the criminal investigation and
resolution of any criminal matter, the office shall
review the case files in order to determine whether
a disciplinary investigation should be initiated.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

49

Appendix 5 (Continued)
Ordinance 15611
Section 7B: The ability to respond to the scene of
critical incidents. At a critical incident scene, the
investigator shall only be an observer. They shall
not conduct or interfere with any investigation and
shall coordinate their presence and activities with
the on-scene commander from the Sheriff’s Office.
The investigator’s duties to monitor, check for
completeness and require additional investigation
as necessary apply only if a formal complaint
investigation is conducted by the IIU.
Section 7C: Approval for completeness of
complaints investigations before a finding can be
issued. The internal investigations unit must submit
all completed misconduct investigation to OLEO,
with an amount of time specified for the approval
or direction for further investigation. If the unit
disagrees with the Office, the Sheriff shall act as
arbiter and make the final decision(s).
Section 7D: The option to consult with command
staff or the appropriate supervisor as to the
command staff’s or supervisor’s own review and
recommendations regarding a particular
investigation, including proposed discipline; and
Section 7E: The option to submit
recommendations regarding findings and discipline
directly to the sheriff before a final decision on
misconduct cases.
Section 8: OLEO, in collaboration with the
Sheriff’s Office, shall establish and administer a
voluntary officer-citizen mediation program. The
program shall provide an alternative method to
resolve citizen complaints by allowing willing
citizens and officers to meet under the guidance of
a professional mediator to discuss and resolve their
differences. OLEO and the Sheriff’s Office shall
establish standards and guidelines to determine
when a particular complaint may be referred to
mediation. Serious complaints are excluded from
the use of mediation to resolve allegations.

Ordinance 16511
Repealed by Ordinance 16511.

Repealed by Ordinance 16511.

Repealed by Ordinance 16511.

Repealed by Ordinance 16511.

Included as Section 7 In Ordinance 16511 along
with an additional last sentence: Prior to the
complainant agreeing to utilize the mediation
process to resolve the complaint, the office shall
explain the mediation process to the complainant,
including that if the officer participates in good
faith, the officer will be not subject to discipline
and the complaint will be administratively
dismissed.

New Section 6B: The IIU shall notify the office of
all administrative interviews on all complaints of a
serious matter, which are complaints that could
lead to suspension, demotion or discharge, and all
complaints originating from the office. A single
office representative may attend and observe
interviews and shall be given the opportunity to ask
questions that are within the scope of permissible
investigative questioning after the completion of
questioning by the Sheriff’s Office.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

50

Appendix 5 (Continued)
Ordinance 15611

Section 8: The office, in collaboration with the
Sheriff’s Office shall establish and administer a
voluntary officer-citizen medication program. The
program shall provide an alternative method to
resolve citizen complaints by allowing willing
citizens and officers to meet under the guidance of
a professional mediator to discuss and resolve their

Ordinance 16511
New Section 6C: The office shall not participate in
criminal investigations of Sheriff’s Office
employees in any way and shall not be notified of
any part of the criminal investigation until the
criminal investigation is concluded. At that point,
the file shall be provided to the office.
New Section 6D: Upon completion of internal
investigations, the unit shall forward a complete
copy of the case file to the office for review. The
director shall determine, in writing, whether the
investigation was thorough and objective.
New Section 6E: As part of the review process, if
the director believes that additional investigation is
needed on issues material to the outcome, the
director shall request that further investigative work
be completed. If there is any dispute between the
assigned investigator or investigators and the office
regarding the necessity, practicality or materiality
of the requested additional investigation, the unit
commander shall determine whether additional
investigation will be undertaken. If the director is
not satisfied with the determination of the unit
commander, the matter shall be submitted to the
Sheriff for review. If the director is not satisfied
with the determination of the sheriff, the matter
shall be resolved by the executive, whose decision
shall be final. Once the matter has been referred to
and resolved by the executive, the investigation
shall be completed consistent with the
determination by the executive.
New Section 6F: After completion of the
additional investigation, or the conclusion that no
further investigation will be undertaken, the office
shall certify where or not, in the opinion of the
director, the internal investigation was thorough
and objective. The determination shall be made
within five business days.
New Section 6G: The office shall be provided a
copy of any letter or other notification to an officer
informing them of actual discipline imposed as a
result of an internal affairs investigation or the
notice of finding if the complaint is not sustained.
Section 7: Included In Ordinance 16511 along with
an additional last sentence: Prior to the
complainant agreeing to utilize the mediation
process to resolve the complaint, the office shall
explain the mediation process to the complainant,
including that if the officer participates in good
faith, the officer will not be subject to discipline

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

51

Appendix 5 (Continued)
Ordinance 15611
Ordinance 16511
and the complaint will be administratively
differences. The office and the Sheriff’s Office
dismissed.
shall establish standards and guidelines for
determining when a particular complaint may be
referred for mediation. Serious complaints are
excluded from the use of mediation to resolve
allegations.
Conflict of Interest Provision
New Section 11: This ordinance is not intended to
conflict with any applicable King County collective
bargaining agreement approved by the council. In
the event of any conflict between the ordinance and
a collective bargaining agreement, the provision of
the agreement shall prevail.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

52

Appendix 6
Oversight Provisions in Police Guild
2008-2012 Collective Bargaining Agreement
Article 22: Civilian Review
The King County Office of Law Enforcement Oversight (KCOLEO) will provide a professional
presence to help ensure a quality investigation in real time, and visible, independent oversight to
reassure the public.
Section 1. The KCOLEO will actively monitor all Sheriff’s Office internal investigations.
Section 2. The KCOLEO may receive complaints from any complaining party, including,
without limitation, citizens or employees of the Sheriff’s Office. The KCOLEO will forward all
complaints to the Internal Investigations Unit (IIU) within three business days for processing
and, when appropriate, investigation. The KCOLEO will not conduct independent disciplinary
investigations, but may participate in interviews as provided herein.
Section 3. In addition to complaints received by the KCOLEO, IIU will provide copies of all
other complaints to the KCOLEO within three business days. Once the case is closed, the
KCOLEO will return all case file materials and any other records to IIU for retention, including
copies. The KCOLEO will have subsequent access to closed cases for up to two years solely for
reporting purpose, unless there is a legitimate business necessity to review older files.
Section 4. The KCOLEO will have the opportunity to make a recommendation for mediation to
the Sheriff, prior to investigation. In the event the Sheriff s Office, the complainant and the
officer all agree to mediation, that process will be utilized rather than sending the matter on for
investigation. Assuming the officer participates in good faith during the mediation process, the
officer will not be subject to discipline and the complaint will be administratively dismissed.
Good faith means that the officer listens and considers the issues raised by the complainant, and
acts and responds appropriately. Agreement with either the complainant or the mediator is not a
requirement of good faith. In the event an agreement to mediate is reached and the complainant
thereafter refuses to participate, the officer will be considered to have participated in good faith.
Moreover, any records related to mediation (other than a mediation settlement agreement) shall
not be admissible in any proceeding except to enforce this section.
Section 5. Once any complaint is received by the IIU, it shall be submitted to the chain of
command for review pursuant to the King County General Orders Manual Policy. When either
the Sheriff or her/his designee determines that the allegations warrant investigation, such
investigation shall be approved, and IIU will initiate the investigative process.
Section 6. IIU will notify the KCOLEO of all administrative interviews on all complaints of a
serious matter (complaints that could lead to suspension, demotion or discharge) and all
complaints originating at the KCOLEO. A single KCOLEO representative from the KCOLEO
may attend and observe interviews, and will be given the opportunity to ask questions that are
within the scope of permissible investigative questioning after the completion of questioning by
the Sheriff's Office. The KCOLEO will not participate in criminal investigations of Sheriff's
King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

53

Appendix 6 (Continued)
Office employees in any way, and will not be notified of any part of the criminal investigation
until the criminal investigation is concluded. At that point, the file shall be provided to the
KCOLEO.
Section 7. Upon completion of internal investigations, IIU will forward a complete copy of the
case file to the KCOLEO for review. The KCOLEO will determine, in writing, whether the
investigation was thorough and objective in the opinion of the Director of the KCOLEO.
Section 8. As a part of the review process, the Director of the KCOLEO may believe that
additional investigation is needed on issues he/she deems material to the outcome. If there is any
dispute between the assigned investigator(s) and the KCOLEO regarding the necessity,
practicality or materiality of the requested additional investigation, the IIU Commander will
determine whether additional investigation will be undertaken. If the KCOLEO is not satisfied
with the determination of the IIU Commander, the matter will be submitted to the King County
Sheriff, for review. If the Director of the KCOLEO is not satisfied with the determination of the
Sheriff, the matter will be resolved by the King County Executive, whose decision will be final.
Once the matter has been referred to and resolved by the Executive, the investigation will be
completed consistent with the determination by the Executive. After completion of the additional
investigation, or the conclusion that no further investigation will be undertaken, the KCOLEO
will then certify whether or not, in the opinion of the Director of the KCOLEO, the internal
investigation was thorough and objective. This determination will be made within five (5)
business days. Once the above finding is entered in the investigation, the KCOLEO will not be
involved further in the processing of that case except as provided herein.
Section 9. All final disciplinary decisions will be made by the Sheriff.
Section 10. The KCOLEO will be provided a copy of any letter or other notification to an officer
informing them of actual discipline imposed as a result of an internal affairs investigation or the
Notice of Finding in the event that the complaint is not sustained.
Section 11. The KCOLEO will be notified by IIU within five (5) business days of case closure of
all complaints of a Serious Matter and all complaints originally filed with the KCOLEO. The
KCOLEO, in addition to the Sheriff's Office's written Notice of Finding letter to the
complainant, may send a closing letter to the complainant. The letter may summarize the case
findings within the context of this Article.
Section 12. Any complaining party who is not satisfied with the findings of the Sheriff's Office
concerning their complaint may contact the KCOLEO to discuss the matter further. However,
unless persuasive and probative new information is provided, the investigation will remain
closed. In accordance with established arbitral case law, employees may not be subject to
discipline twice for the same incident. In the event the investigation is re-opened and discipline
imposed, the appropriate burden of establishing compliance with this section rests with the
County in any subsequent challenge to the discipline. Moreover, this section is subject to the 180
day limitation contained in Article 19.9 of this Agreement.
Section 13. In addition to the investigative process, the KCOLEO will have unimpeded access to
all complaint and investigative files for auditing and reporting purposes. The KCOLEO shall not
retain investigative files beyond one year and will return the same to IIU for safekeeping. At all
King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

54

Appendix 6 (Continued)
times and including, without limitation, issuing written reports, no employee of the KCOLEO
will release the name(s) of employees or other individuals involved in incidents or investigations
nor any other personally identifying information. The KCOLEO may make statistical
observations regarding the disciplinary results of sustained internal investigations, but shall not
take issue with discipline imposed by the Sheriff in specific cases.
Section 14. The KCOLEO may recommend policies and procedures for the review and/or audit
of the complaint resolution process, and review and recommend changes in Sheriff's Office
policies to improve the quality of police investigations and practices. Nothing herein shall be
construed as a waiver of the Guild's right to require the County to engage in collective
bargaining as authorized by law.
Section 15. A committee of five (5) members (Committee) will be formed that will recommend
three (3) candidates for the KCOLEO position to the Executive (one of which must be selected).
The Committee shall be composed of one member appointed by the King County Police
Officers' Guild; one member appointed by the Puget Sound Police Manager's Association
(Captains bargaining unit); one member appointed by the Chair of the County Council; and one
member appointed by the County Executive. The fifth member shall be appointed by the other
four (4) members.
Section 16. In addition to whatever job requirements may be established by the County, one of
the minimum job requirements for the KCOLEO will be to have a history that includes the
establishment of a reputation for even-handedness and fairness in dealing with both complainants
and regulated parties. The Committee will be responsible for ensuring that the three candidates
forwarded to the Executive possess the required minimum job requirements. The County agrees
that compliance with the provisions of this agreement will be a condition of employment for all
employees of the KCOLEO.
Section 17. In the event the Guild believes a candidate recommended by the Committee for
Director of the KCOLEO does not meet the minimum job requirement established in Section 16
above, the Guild must within seven (7) business days of the recommendation present information
to the County Executive about their concern. If that person is ultimately selected by the County
Executive, the Guild may file a grievance within five (5) days of the appointment and an
expedited arbitration process will be utilized to resolve the matter. The Arbitrator will conduct an
arbitration within twenty one (21) days, and issue a bench decision either confirming or rejecting
the Executive's appointment. The decision will be final and binding upon the parties. Upon the
filing of a grievance, any appointment shall be held in abeyance pending completion of the
arbitration.
Section 18. Upon implementation of the procedure outlined herein, the County agrees to repeal
the existing Oversight ordinance within 60 days. The sections of the existing Ordinance that do
not involve a mandatory subject of bargaining or otherwise conflict with this Agreement, and
thus may be included in the new Ordinance, are the Sections 1, 2 (except delete 2b), 4 (and
adding the criteria agreed to herein) 10 and 11. The determination as to the size of the KCOLEO
will be made by the County.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

55

King County Sheriff’s Office Response

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

56

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

57

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

58

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

59

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

60

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

61

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

62

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

63

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

64

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

65

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

66

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

67

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

68

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

69

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

70

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

71

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

72

King County Sheriff’s Office Response (Continued)

Sheriff’s Office Strategic Business Plan 2012‐2016 is available at King County Sheriff’s Office
website (www.kingcounty.gov/safety/~/media/safety/sheriff/documents/b/120509_2386L_SheriffBizPlan.ashx).

 

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

73

Office of Law Enforcement Oversight Response

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

74

Office of Law Enforcement Oversight Response
(Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

75

Office of Law Enforcement Oversight Response
(Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

76

Office of Law Enforcement Oversight Response
(Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

77

Office of Law Enforcement Oversight Response
(Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

78

Office of Law Enforcement Oversight Response
(Continued)

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

79

Statement of Compliance
Statement of Compliance with Government Auditing Standards
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
Scope of Work on Internal Controls
We assessed internal controls relevant to the audit objectives. These objectives were satisfied by
assessing the current practices, testing for compliance with established policies and procedures. This
report summarizes the issues identified and and the resulting recommendations based on these
activities.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

80

List of Recommendations & Implementation Schedule
Recommendation 1: KCSO should develop leadership expectations that all complaints, misconduct,
and policy violations will be categorically captured and reported into Blue Team. KCSO should also
expand the GOM by adding a Failure to Supervise section and outlining disciplinary actions for
supervisors who fail to document all incidents of misconduct and violations of policy, as required by
the GOM.
Implementation Date: September, 2012
Estimate of Impact: More effective leadership, management, and supervision

Recommendation 2: KCSO executive leadership should formally and informally remind officers and
supervisors that compliance with personnel conduct and reporting requirements is mandatory, and
must be the standard by which professionalism is demonstrated throughout the department.
Implementation Date: December, 2012
Estimate of Impact: Improved understanding of expectations relating to complaints

Recommendation 3: The GOM should be changed, allowing the Sheriff and/or IIU to file, without
restriction from the rank and file, a department-initiated complaint when direct supervisors and
commanders refuse to do so in the event of egregious acts of misconduct and policy violations. The
GOM should also compel direct supervisors and commanders to fully cooperate with the IIU in
handling department-initiated complaints.
Implementation Date: December, 2012
Estimate of Impact: Needed revisions to General Orders Manual

Recommendation 4: KCSO should develop more detailed GOM and SOPs that outline the exact
reporting and investigation processes for complaints; these detailed polices should become the
standard that is adhered to by officers and supervisors throughout the department.
Implementation Date: December 2012
Estimate of Impact: Improved accountability through better reporting and investigation

Recommendation 5: KCSO should review the current CALEA standards, identify any gaps in its
GOM and SOPs, and commit to addressing them prior to the scheduled 2013 CALEA reaccreditation
process to ensure full CALEA compliance and ongoing accreditation, including:
a) Standards for complaint processing and investigation for all complaints, including anonymous
complaints; and,
b) Realigning the KCSO command structure to have the IIU Commander report directly to the Sheriff
(see Recommendation 7, below).
Implementation Date: December 2012 and ongoing
Estimate of Impact: Positions KCSO to qualify for CALEA accreditation in 2013

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

81

List of Recommendations & Implementation Schedule (Continued)
Recommendation 6: KCSO should require all complaints to be documented in exactly the same
manner, including the following:
a) A defined template for what elements need to be included in the written documentation;
b) A clear process identifying who is responsible for completing the documentation;
c) An established understanding of who is responsible for reviewing the written documentation and
forwarding it up the chain of command to IIU; and,
d) A clear determination that all such documents should be centrally stored in one common
location: the IIU.
Implementation Date: December 2012
Estimate of Impact: Uniformity and consistency in the processing and the documentation of
complaints

Recommendation 7: KCSO should modify the position of the IIU Commander in the organization
such that s/he reports directly to the Sheriff and the PSM Manager to avoid losing the benefits of
working with the Professional Standards Manager.
Implementation Date: September 2012
Estimate of Impact: Direct access and reporting by IIU Commander to the Sheriff

Recommendation 8: KCSO should explore opportunities to extend the 90-day rolling period for
maintaining complaint and incident data to a one-year period to improve the completeness and
effectiveness of its trend analysis and reports disseminated to officials and the public.
Implementation Date: January 2013
Estimate of Impact: A change to the 90-day period will require contract discussions with the
Police Officer’s Guild.

Recommendation 9: KCSO should outline policies and procedures for supervisors that will increase
the variety of data that must be entered into the Blue Team system and forwarded to IIU, thereby
enhancing the effectiveness of the KCSO Early Intervention System and Blue Team application.
Implementation Date: December 2012
Estimate of Impact: More detailed instructions will be included in the SOPs.

Recommendation 10: KCSO should consider using a template that facilitates Blue Team entry,
review, and approval of selected lower-level citizen complaints, which can be handled efficiently and
quickly at the first-line supervisor level, and forwarded for entry into the IAPro system for tracking
and early intervention purposes.
Implementation Date: December 2012
Estimate of Impact:A template and checklist will facilitate complaint intake and
completeness.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

82

List of Recommendations & Implementation Schedule (Continued)
Recommendation 11: KCSO should provide ongoing training to all supervisors on the effective use
of the Blue Team system, as well as ongoing training on how to investigate and document misconduct
complaints and inquiries using the Investigative Report Format outlined in GOM Section 3.03.175 and
the Blue Team template.
Implementation Date: December 2012 and ongoing
Estimate of Impact:Will help to clarify expectations and responsibilities

Recommendation 12: KCSO should also explore opportunities to expand its own training resources,
or identify training programs in other jurisdictions, to address the main cause of “recurring”
performance issues within the department.
Implementation Date: December 2012
Estimate of Impact: KCSO’s response indicates its 2013 budget request will ask for more
staffing and IT resources. We do not have details on where such resources would be applied.

Recommendation 13: OLEO, in collaboration with KCSO, should continue planning and developing
working guidelines and measurable objectives to assure that the effectiveness and benefits of law
enforcement oversight are maximized.
Implementation Date: Ongoing
Estimate of Impact: A collaborative working relationship between the two agencies

Recommendation 14: OLEO, in conjunction with KCSO, should take proactive steps to educate both
the public and the rank-and-file members about the formal mediation program as soon as the program
is in place. Both IIU staff and OLEO staff should offer and explain the program to complainants when
they initially consider filing what could be considered a lower-level complaint.
Implementation Date: January 2013
Estimate of Impact: Development of a mediation program is in progress.

Recommendation 15: KCSO and OLEO should each submit an annual report detailing progress in
successfully implementing the recommendations in this report and in future subsequent reports. KCSO
should also provide detailed annual statistics reports on the number, type, and unit location of
allegations and complaints received to allow for greater tracking and analysis of supervisor
compliance with reporting requirements and community outreach efforts.
Implementation Date: Ongoing, with reports due each August, if not sooner
Estimate of Impact: These reports will help to track the status of effective implementation of
the audit recommendations.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

83

List of Recommendations & Implementation Schedule (Continued)
Recommendation 16: The King County Council may want to consider, pending the outcome of labor
negotiations, embodying features of its newly adopted labor policy regarding civilian oversight of the
Sheriff’s Office in Chapter 2.75 of the King County Code.
Implementation Date: Ongoing
Estimate of Impact: Possible enhancement of OLEO’s authority to provide for more effective
oversight.

King County Auditor’s Office – Performance Audit of King County Sheriff’s Office and Law Enforcement Oversight

84