17-18 Inaccurate Reports (Sustained)

Pullman Police Department
Complete Details For 17-18

Date Complaint Taken: 9/26/2017 Date Occurred: 3/1/2017 Racial: No Case No.: 17-p05441 No. Type:
Category: Formal Internal Complaint Type: Type Unknown Occured: On Duty
Location Occurred: Not Stated District/Area: Not Stated

Video Available
Complainant: JENKINS, GARY Sex: Race:
No
Complainant's Address: Not Stated ?? Unk Home Phone: Camera Not Indicated
Cell Phone: Business Phone: Email Address:
Assigned: SERGEANT DORNES Date Assigned: 8/10/2017 Days Case Due In: Date Due:
Current Case Disposition: SUSTAINED Date Completed: 11/10/2017 How Complaint Was Reported:
Complainant Satisfaction: Satisfaction Comments:
Summary: Prosecutor complaint of inaccuracies in Bray's police report.
Type Of Complaint Description Complaint Disposition

Complaint #: 1 CHAPTER 13 (2.20) Completion of reports Accuracy of reports SUSTAINED
Complaint #: 2 Chapter 7 Rules of Conduct section 2.2.4 Performance of duties in a compet SUSTAINED
Name ID Number Rank Division Shift Officer Disposition On Alert Camera

Officer #: 1 BRAY, JOSHUA C. 465 OFFICER 4TH CLASS PATROL Not Stated SUSTAINED Yes No
Narrative: Prosecutor complaint of inaccuracies in police report. (17-P05441, 17-P05435, 17-P01233)

PULLMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
INTERNAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
Complaint Origin:
( ) Citizen ( ) Supervisor ( ) Police Employee ( ) Civil Claim

(X) Other (Whitman County Prosecutor Denis Tracy)
Date Complaint/Allegation Received by the Department:
07/28/2017
Manner Complaint/Allegation Received:
(X) In Person ( ) By Telephone ( ) Written (X) E-mail

( ) Other (specify)
Member Receiving Complaint:
L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:23:09 PM Page 1 of20


JENKINS, Gary / Chief of Police
Date of Alleged Incident:
On or about 05/21/2017 to 06/21/2017.
Location of Alleged Incident:
Name, Address and Phone Number of Person(s) Making Allegations:
Denis Tracy, Whitman County Prosecuting Attorney

400 N. Main Street
Colfax, WA 99163
(509) 397-6250
Nature of Complaint/Allegations:
On 07/28/2017, Whitman County Prosecuting Attorney Denis Tracy met with Chief Gary Jenkins to discuss a criminal DUI case which was
investigated by Officer Bray (PPD Case #17-P5441). Tracy reported “sloppiness and inaccuracies” in the arrest report, and informed Chief
Jenkins that his office would not accept any further DUI cases from Officer Bray until after he successfully completes the basic certification
course for the BAC machine.
Chief Jenkins listed the following inaccuracies in the case report for #17-P05441 as described by Tracy:
1.The first paragraph of the narrative indicates the initial time as 0201 hours; the actual time was approximately 30 minutes later.
2.The third paragraph of the narrative indicates various positions of the vehicle in relation to the striped white lines on the roadway; no
striped white lines are visible in the officer’s video, and the lines may not have been present at all, possibly due to wear.
3.When describing the field sobriety tests, Officer Bray does not describe a vertical nystagmus test he conducted (appears on video),
leaving the appearance there was exculpatory evidence not disclosed since a portion of the investigation was excluded from the police
report. Additionally, the PA wonders if Officer Bray has any training in conducting and interpreting vertical nystagmus tests.
4.The instructions for the one leg stand test in the police report do not match the actual instructions on video.
5.When describing checking the PBT prior to giving the PBT test, Officer Bray indicates he checked to make sure it was .000 before the
test. It is difficult to determine if Officer Bray actually checked the PBT prior to the test. Based on multiple other inaccuracies, this is now in
question.
6.Prior to giving the PBT test, Officer Bray wrote in his report that the subject told him he did not have anything in his mouth; the video
contradicts that statement.
7.Prior to giving the breath test at the police station, Officer Bray wrote in his report that he checked the subject’s mouth for any foreign
substances and material; the video contradicts that statement.
8.The video revealed that Officer Bray had the subject sign the form for DOL before giving the breath test.
9.The video revealed that Officer Bray filled in the time that the subject talked to his attorney by looking at his watch well after the subject
talked to his attorney, and then apparently estimating what time it actually occurred, without indicating that the time written was an estimate.
10.The video revealed that Officer Bray did not fill out the bottom section of the implied consent form when the information was allegedly
collected.
11.The video revealed that Officer Bray did not look to see if the subject had anything in his mouth just prior to the breath test, but indicated
in the report that he did look, and even provided a time.
12.The pre-arrest observations section was not completed.
13.FST results section was not completed (however, it is arguable that writing this information in the narrative is sufficient).
14.The video revealed that Officer Bray had the subject sign a criminal citation before the breath test was given.
15.The video revealed that during the time Officer Bray was supposed to have the subject under observation prior to the breath test, Officer
Bray had the subject sit off to his periphery where it is arguable that Bray did not have him under observation.


In addition, Prosecutor Tracy added that in another case, PPD #17-P01233, Officer Bray wrote in his report when Sergeant Dornes had
advised the subject of his Miranda Rights, and the chronology provided by Officer Bray was inaccurate and conflicts with Sergeant Dornes’
account, appearing to be intentionally misleading.
On Monday 07/29/2017, Commander Tennant met with this investigator, and directed that an Internal Affairs investigation be initiated with
regard to Prosecutor Tracy’s complaint.
On 08/22/2017, Prosecutor Denis Tracy sent an email message to Chief Jenkins, in which he requested to include another case (17-
P05435) in the internal investigation, in particular with regard to the written statement regarding the mouth check not corroborating with the
video footage. The following is the original email from Tracy dated 08/22/2017:
From: Denis Tracy [mailto:DenisT@co.whitman.wa.us]

Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:28 PM
To: Jenkins, Gary <gary.jenkins@pullman-wa.gov>
Subject: Officer Bray
Importance: High
Gary,
Today I reviewed a case that was submitted to the PA’s office August 14 by Officer Bray, requesting charges of DUI. It is case 17-P5435,
with suspect name of 1 - Righ...
In reviewing the report I see similar statements made by Officer Bray in this report, as he made in the 1 - Right to ... DUI, 17-P5441, regarding the
mouth check prior to a breath test at the station, which statements are apparently not born out by the video footage. This particular case
occurred on the same day (I think) as the 1 - Right to ... case.
If this case (17-P5435) is not already part of your internal investigation, I respectfully request that you consider making it part of the
investigation.
Sincerely,
Denis Tracy
Member(s) Against Whom Complaint is Alleged:

(Last Name, First Name, Middle Name, Position and Rank)
BRAY, Joshua Craig / Patrol Officer / Police Officer 3rd Class
Name and Rank of Person Assigned Investigation:
DORNES, Daniel Lee / Sergeant
Date Assigned to the Investigator:
Written Notice of the Nature of an Investigation issued 08/02/2017
Date the Investigator Made First Personal Contact with the Complaining Person(s):
N/A
Date Investigation Completed:


November 1, 2017
Witnesses:
(Full name, address and telephone numbers. If a member of the Department indicate name, rank/title.)
None. [However, this investigator was present and witnessed portions at the scene of 17-P05441 DUI and 17-P01233 Assault/DV.]
Summary of Allegations and Investigation:

(Attach all documents, notes and other material pertaining to the complaint and forward for review to proper authority).
The three cases cited by Prosecutor Tracy (17-P05441, 17-P01233 and 17-P05435) were examined for the allegations mentioned in
Prosecutor Tracy’s emails, point-by-point:
17-P05441 DUI
1.The first paragraph of the narrative indicates the initial time as 0201 hours; the actual time was approximately 30 minutes later.
The Spillman radio history shows the time of the initial traffic stop by Officer Bray at 0232 hrs, as entered into Spillman by the dispatcher at
the time.
The time of the stop is also corroborated by the BWC video, which indicates the start time of the video at 0231 hrs (clock time), and Officer
Bray calling out for the traffic stop at almost a minute later (50 seconds to be more precise), which would also be approximately 0232 hrs.
2.The third paragraph of the narrative indicates various positions of the vehicle in relation to the striped white lines on the roadway; no
striped white lines are visible in the officer’s video, and the lines may not have been present at all, possibly due to wear.
The BWC video shows the defendant’s vehicle turning from Grand Avenue east onto Stadium Way, and the vehicle can be clearly seen at
00:38 seconds straddling the approximate center of the two eastbound lanes, although the video does not show any white striping of the
lane divider. The vehicle can be seen traveling this way for approximately 4 seconds, until seen at 00:42 seconds moving into the outside
lane approximately near the west driveway entrance into the Taco Bell-Little Caesars-Red Bento shopping center on the south side of the
street.
On October 30, I went to the scene after dark at approximately 2350 hrs, and saw that the center lane divider stripes at this location appear
to have been re-painted, likely during the summer months. I saw that there was one white stripe at the crosswalk at the intersection, and
four additional white stripes before the west driveway entrance to the shopping center. The last three stripes appeared to have been
painted without overlaying the previous white lane divider stripes. Sections of the previous (worn] stripes were worn but visible to the naked
eye. I obtained digital images, of the three worn stripes, which I uploaded to Evidence.com, along with overall images of the view
eastbound on that section of the city street.
3.When describing the field sobriety tests, Officer Bray does not describe a vertical nystagmus test he conducted (appears on video),
leaving the appearance there was exculpatory evidence not disclosed since a portion of the investigation was excluded from the police
report. Additionally, the PA wonders if Officer Bray has any training in conducting and interpreting vertical nystagmus tests.


BWC video file #201705210231 shows Officer Bray conducting a vertical gaze nystagmus test after he does a horizontal gaze nystagmus
test. The written report submitted by Officer Bray does not make any mention of a check by Officer Bray for vertical gaze nystagmus.
On 10/25/2017, I interviewed WSP Trooper Jon McKee, who teaches the SFST’s (Standardized Field Sobriety Tests) and the BAC basic
and recertification classes. He stated that the vertical gaze nystagmus check is done to determine “if a personal limit for alcohol” has been
exceeded. He said some people have a lessor tolerance, and are more affected by alcohol, than others, even with the same measured
objective BAC. For example, an inexperienced drinker with a BAC of 0.05 grams / 210 liters of breath may show vertical gaze nystagmus.
However, a lack of vertical gaze nystagmus would not indicate there was no alcohol in the bloodstream, nor a BAC less than 0.08 grams.
He added that some drugs may also cause vertical nystagmus. He stated officers are trained to look during the vertical gaze nystagmus
check for “distinct and sustained nystagmus” (which is similar to the observation of “distinct and sustained nystagmus” during the horizontal
nystagmus check).
Trooper McKee stated that the absence of vertical nystagmus does not invalidate the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. He also stated that
the observation of a lack of vertical gaze nystagmus is not exculpatory.
4.The instructions for the one leg stand test in the police report do not match the actual instructions on video.
Officer Bray’s report narrative states the following regarding the instructions for the One-Leg Stand test:
“I told 1 - Right to Pr... to stand with his feet together and his arms at his sides. I told him to stay in that position until I told him to start. He said he
understood. I told 1 - Right to P... that when instructed to, he would lift the leg of his choice approximately six inches off of the ground with his toe
pointed out. I told him to keep both of his legs straight and his arms at his sides. I told him to count out loud, 1001, 1002, 1003 and so on
until I instructed him to stop. I explained to him that I wanted him to look at his raised foot. I told 1 - Right to P... that if he put his foot down, he
was to raise it back up and to continue counting from where he left off. I demonstrated the test. He said he understood the test. I asked
him to begin.”
The BWC video shows most of the instructions were verbally issued as documented in the report, with some slight deviations, but with
essentially the same meaning.
One place in which an instruction included more wording than was in the written report: Officer Bray’ BWC video showed that he included
further clarification in the instructions, in that he told 1 - Right to ... not only to have “his toes pointed out,” but also verbally instructed, “and
parallel to the ground.” (Which is proper.)
Three sentences are included in his written report, which are not present in the BWC video:
1)Officer Bray’s instructions as documented in the report stated, in reference to the instruction to stand with his feet together and his hands
at his sides, “I told him to stay in that position until I told him to start.”
2)Officer Bray’s instructions as documented in the report stated, “I told him to keep both of his legs straight and his arms at his sides.” The
BWC video does not show Officer Bray making this statement to 1 - Right to P... [However, during the actual performance of the test, at one point
Officer Bray tells 1 - Right to P... to “keep your leg straight.”]
3)Officer Bray’s instructions at the end state, “He said he understood the test.” The BWC video does not show 1 - Right to ... making this specific
statement.
5.When describing checking the PBT prior to giving the PBT test, Officer Bray indicates he checked to make sure it was .000 before the
test. It is difficult to determine if Officer Bray actually checked the PBT prior to the test. Based on multiple other inaccuracies, this is now in
question.


Officer Bray used the Alco-Sensor FST PBT (Preliminary Breath Tester) from the trunk of patrol vehicle #17-017. Prosecutor Tracy stated
that it is difficult to determine if Bray actually checked the PBT prior to the test, which is true by only viewing Officer Bray’s BWC. However,
I [Sergeant Dornes] also arrived at the scene, and had delivered the Alco-Sensor FST PBT to Officer Bray. By viewing my own BWC video
(Axon Flex video #201705210235), the “beeping sounds” from the PBT can be clearly heard, indicating the device going through the
electronic self-check process, consisting of single or double beeps, beginning at 7:07 minutes into my recording, and ending at 7:19 into the
recording. [Note: This Alco-Sensor FST is the newer type of PBT device, which operates differently from the older PBT devices used at
Pullman PD. The FST measures and displays the device temperature at the beginning of the self-check process on the LCD view screen,
and will not allow a breath sample to be taken without the device being within the proper operating temperature range. The older devices
do not make any beeping sounds, and the temperature range must be checked visually by viewing the temperature strip on the back of the
device.]
6.Prior to giving the PBT test, Officer Bray wrote in his report that the subject told him he did not have anything in his mouth; the video
contradicts that statement.
Regarding the Preliminary Breath Test, Officer Bray’s report states in part, “ 1 - Right to ... told me he didn't have anything to drink within the last
fifteen minutes and he said he didn't have anything in his mouth.” [Emphasis mine.]
Neither Officer Bray’s nor Sergeant Dornes’ BWC video show 1 - Right to P... stating he “didn’t have anything in his mouth.”
7.Prior to giving the breath test at the police station, Officer Bray wrote in his report that he checked the subject’s mouth for any foreign
substances and material; the video contradicts that statement.
In Officer Bray’s report, after he arranged for 1 - Right to ... to speak with defense attorney Steve Martonick, he stated, “At 0310 hours, I checked
s mouth for any foreign substances and material. I did not find anything foreign in his mouth.”
1 - Right to P...
Officer Bray’s BWC video (#201705210301) shows Officer Bray setting up a phone connection for 1 - Right to ... with Mr. Martonick, and
successfully making verbal contact with Mr. Martonick at approximately 00:55 seconds into the video (approximately 0302 hrs clock time).
At approximately 07:09 minutes into the video (approximately 0308 hrs clock time), Officer Bray is seen in the video opening the interview
room door to bring 1 - Right to P... out of the room after he had concluded his conference with Mr. Martonick. Officer Bray is seen on the video
going through the DUI processing paperwork, including the Whitman County Notice of Hearing form,and constitutional rights. At
approximately 13:55 minutes into the recording (0313 hrs clock time) Officer Bray is visible in the recording beginning to advise 1 - Right to ... of
the Implied Consent warnings.
The BWC does not show Officer Bray asking 1 - Right to P... to open his mouth for a mouth examination, nor asking 1 - Right to ... if he has anything in
his mouth, up to the point that 1 - Right to ... begins to provide his first breath sample at approximately 29:07 minutes into the BWC recording
(03:30 hrs clock time).
The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 448-16-040 provides for the administrative requirements for determining if there is any foreign
substance in the subject, and provides two ways that this is accomplished:
1)An examination of the mouth, or

2)A denial by the person that he or she has any foreign substances in their mouth
The following is the actual Washington Administrative Code text:
WAC 448-16-040
Foreign substances, interference, and invalid samples.
(1)A determination as to whether a subject has a foreign substance in his or her mouth will be made by either an examination of the mouth
or a denial by the person that he or she has any foreign substances in their mouth. A test mouthpiece is not considered a foreign substance
for purposes of RCW 46.61.506.


8.The video revealed that Officer Bray had the subject sign the form for DOL before giving the breath test.
On Officer Bray’s video does show Officer Bray providing the DOL Request for DUI hearing form to 1 - Right to ... (09:18 minutes into the
recording, or approximately 0309 hrs clock time), and subsequently requesting 1 - Right to ... sign the form. Above the signature line, a check
box was marked next to a statement which reads: “Driver’s Hearing Request Information was given to the arrested person.” Directly under
the check box line, and directly above the signature line, the statement reads: “Notice of Right to Hearing: I have been given written notice
of my right to a hearing, including the steps required to obtain a hearing, and understand that the notice of suspension, revocation, or denial
of license will be mailed to the address of record on file with the Department of Licensing.”
As part of the DUI Implied Consent law, the initiation of the DOL administrative suspension of the defendant’s driver’s license is triggered by
either a refusal to submit to a breath test, or by BAC readings which showed a BAC over 0.08, or a THC blood content of 5.00 ng or more
(or if under 21 yoa a BAC over 0.02 or a THC content over 0.00 ng). As part of this process, the driver may request a DOL Hearing to
contest the suspension of the driver’s license, which postpones the suspension pending the DOL Hearing. This request for a hearing must
be postmarked within 20 days of the arrest, or the driver loses all rights to an appeal of the administrative suspension.
Officer Bray’s giving of the DOL Request for DUI Hearing form to 1 - Right to P... and having him sign the form, was not improper. The only
negative impact would have been toward 1 - Right to P..., possibly involving wasting his time. If 1 - Right to ... provided a BAC breath test result
indicating a BAC under 0.08, no administrative suspension process by DOL would have been automatically initiated, and therefore there
would be no need for any DOL Hearing. Although this may have wasted 1 - Right to... ’s time, it would not have had any negative impact on his
license status. In this case, the BAC results were over 0.08, so the issuance of a Request for DUI Hearing form was proper.
9.The video revealed that Officer Bray filled in the time that the subject talked to his attorney by looking at his watch well after the subject
talked to his attorney, and then apparently estimating what time it actually occurred, without indicating that the time written was an estimate.
Officer Bray is seen in his BWC video initiating a reading of Constitutional Rights to Labriola at 11:17 minutes into the recording
(approximately 0312 hrs clock time), and completing this at 12:00 minutes into the recording (approximately 0313 hrs clock time).
Officer Bray documented on Page 2 of the DUI packet in the “ATTORNEY CONTACTED” field with a check box of “YES,” and in the video,
you can see Officer Bray look at his wristwatch at 12:34 minutes into the BWC video recording #201705210301 (which would be
approximately 0313 hrs clock time), and then handwriting the time (“0307” hrs) into this field.
Officer Bray’s second video (#201705210301), which all takes place in the holding facility, documents the beginning time of this BWC
recording at 0301 hrs. It shows 1 - Right to ... knocking on the window at 7:00 minutes into the recording to indicate he was finished with his
phone call with the attorney. With this recording start time at approximately 0301 hrs clock time, this indicates the time he finished with his
phone call with the attorney at approximately 0308 hrs clock time.
The BWC video indicated that attorney Steve Martonick answered the phone at 0:55 minutes into the recording, which would indicate an
approximate time for his picking up the phone at 0302 hrs clock time (BWC start clock time of 0301 + 55 seconds = approximately 0302 hrs
clock time).
The time documented by Officer Bray of 0307 hrs was within one minute of the actual time of approximately 0308 hrs for the completion of
the attorney-client conference. When considering that the seconds before or after the top of the minute are not included,which could affect
the actual time up to 60 seconds in each direction, the time documented is essentially accurate.
10.The video revealed that Officer Bray did not fill out the bottom section of the implied consent form when the information was allegedly
collected.
This investigator is unaware of any statutory or administrative code requirement that the bottom section of the Implied Consent form be
completed at any particular time. The essential documentation in this section would be that it be accurate and truthful.


Prosecutor Tracy does not indicate any allegation that this portion of the form is inaccurate or untruthful, except for an allegation that Officer
Bray did not check 1 - Right to P... ’s mouth for foreign substance(s). See item (#7) for that point.
11.The video revealed that Officer Bray did not look to see if the subject had anything in his mouth just prior to the breath test, but indicated
in the report that he did look, and even provided a time.
[Note: This item (#11) is essentially a duplicate of item #7. See #7 above.]
12.The pre-arrest observations section was not completed.
Completing the “Pre-Arrest Observations” section of the DUI packet at the bottom portion of page 4 is not required. PPD officers document
the information in this section within their written Spillman narrative, and completion of this hand-written portion of the DUI packet would
simply be duplicative. This investigator has reviewed hundreds of PPD DUI case reports, and is unaware of any in which this section had
been completed in the past.
13.FST results section was not completed (however, it is arguable that writing this information in the narrative is sufficient).
The FST results section of the DUI packet is on page 5, and it is not required for officers to complete this hand-written section of the DUI
packet. This investigator, who has reviewed hundreds of PPD DUI reports, is unaware of any PPD officers that have ever completed this
handwritten section of the DUI packet. For PPD officers, this information is documented in the report narrative.
14.The video revealed that Officer Bray had the subject sign a criminal citation before the breath test was given.
Officer Bray is documented in his BWC as having issued Labriola the criminal citation before the breath test was given.
Officers are authorized by law to arrest offenders, and issue criminal citations, charging a defendant with a misdemeanor or gross
misdemeanor crime when the crime occurs in his/her presence, or when it did not occur in his/her presence, if there was probable cause to
believe the crime occurred and the crime is an exception to the “misdemeanor presence rule” as authorized in RCW 10.31.100.
In this particular case, there is no allegation that Officer Bray did not have probable cause to believe the crime of DUI (RCW 46.61.502) was
committed by 1 - Right to P... and he placed1 - Right to Pr... under arrest for that crime. RCW 10.31.100(3)(d) authorizes the arrest by an officer if he/she
has probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a violation of … RCW 46.61.502, relating to persons under the
influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.
The arrest, and also the issuance of a criminal citation, revolves around the fact that there was probable cause to believe 1 - Right to P... had
committed, or was committing the crime of DUI, and, as long as he had probable cause for the arrest, it is immaterial whether or not he had
yet blown into the BAC machine.
The BAC results may provide important evidence to support the prosecution of the crime of DUI, specifically if the results showed a BAC
above the per se limit of 0.08 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath as noted in RCW 46.61.502(1)(a). However, the BAC is not the sole
determination for the crime of DUI, as RCW 46.61.502(1)(c) states, “A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating
liquor, marijuana, or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state while the person is under the influence or affected by
intoxicating liquor, marijuana, or any drug.” [Emphasis mine.] This would be regardless of the subjects objectively measured BAC level.
Although it is more typical for officers to issue a criminal citation for DUI at the end of the processing for DUI, it is not unlawful nor
inappropriate to issue the citation before the breath test is administered.
15.The video revealed that during the time Officer Bray was supposed to have the subject under observation prior to the breath test, Officer
Bray had the subject sit off to his periphery where it is arguable that Bray did not have him under observation.


Officer Bray is seen on the BWC video completing the reading of the Implied Consent warnings and signing his name and noting the
date/time at approximately 16:04 minutes into the recording (approximately 0317 hrs clock time).
Officer Bray was seated at the table next to the Draegar BAC machine. 1 - Right to P... was seated across from him and offset by 2 to 3 feet from
directly in front of Officer Bray. His positioning is clearly and easily observable in this position, although at times in peripheral view of the
officer. Officers are trained that keeping the arrestee in peripheral view is acceptable during the observation period. In fact, in this case, at
one point, 1 - Right to Pr... is seen covering his mouth with his left hand (but did not show that his hand was put inside his mouth), and Officer Bray
stopped him and requested he keep his hands away from his mouth at 27:03 minutes into the recording (approximately 0328 hrs clock
time). Officer Bray momentarily looks away a couple of times to obtain 1 - Right to P... ’s driver’s license from his wallet in the property tray. The
BWC video shows 1 - Right to P... within view of Officer Bray’s camera for most of the time during the observation period.
You can see in the video the 1st breath blow begins at 29:07 into the recording (approximately 0330 hrs clock time), which is approximately
22 minutes after being seated. [The requirement is for 15 minutes of observation time.]
17-P05435 DUI
In this case, Prosecutor Tracy stated, “In reviewing the report I see similar statements made by Officer Bray in this report, as he made in
the 1 - Right to ... DUI, 17-P5441, regarding the mouth check prior to a breath test at the station, which statements are apparently not born out by
the video footage.”
Prosecutor Tracy’s concern in the previous case (17-P05441) was stated, “The video revealed that Officer Bray did not look to see if the
subject had anything in his mouth just prior to the breath test, but indicated in the report that he did look, and even provided a time.”
Officer Bray’s report narrative states in part, “At 2355 hours, I checked 1 -... ’s mouth for any foreign substances and material. I did not find
anything foreign in her mouth.”
In the BWC video (#201705202332), Officer Bray is seen bringing the defendant into the processing area at 19:17 minutes into the
recording. (Due to the recording beginning at a clock time of 2351 hrs, the clock time for Officer Bray bringing 1 - ... into the processing area
was approximately 2329 hrs.)
At 20:05 minutes into the recording (approximately 2352 hrs clock time), Officer Bray seats himself at the table adjacent to the Draeger
BAC machine directly across from the defendant.
Officer Bray accepts the beginning of the first breath sample at 18:07 minutes into the 2nd Bray BWC recording for this case
(#201705210003). The recording start time of this video section was 0003 hrs clock time. Therefore the first breath test began at
approximately 0021 hrs clock time).
The stated time in Officer Brays report for the mouth check would be at approximately 23 minutes into the recording (recording start time at
2332 hrs clock time, plus 23 minutes recording time = approximately 2355 hrs clock time for stated time of the mouth check). The video
does not show Officer Bray physically checking 1 - ...’s mouth, nor asking her if she had any foreign substances in his mouth at that time, nor
anytime from the time 1 - ... was brought into the processing area 2329 hrs up to the point the first breath sample is started at 0021 hrs.
17-P01233 Assault/DV
In this case, Prosecutor Tracy stated in part, “Officer Bray wrote in his report when Sergeant Dornes had advised the subject of his Miranda
Rights, and the chronology provided by Officer Bray was inaccurate and conflicts with Sergeant Dornes’ account, appearing to be


intentionally misleading.”
It can be inferred in Officer Bray’s report in paragraph #3, #4 and #5 of the main narrative, that Sergeant Dornes informed 1 - Right to... of his
Miranda rights immediately after Officer Bray informed him he was being detained:
“Officer McNannay kicked the front door open and we entered the apartment. Officer McNannay kicked the bedroom door open and we
ordered 1 - Right t... to get on the ground. 1 - Right t... did not follow commands and walked towards me. I grabbed him by the arm and guided him to
the ground and placed handcuffs on 1 - Right t... 1 - Right ... kept saying he had a video that he wanted us to see. I notified 1 - Right ... that he was being
detained. Sgt. Dornes notified 1 - Right t... of his full Miranda rights.”
“Officer McNannay escorted 1 - Right... to interview her in the back bedroom.”
“I frisked the couch and found a sharp medium sized kitchen knife under the cushion.”
Sergeant Dornes’ statement in paragraphs #5, #6, #7 and #8 of supplement #5 states:
“Officer Bray directed 1 - Right to P... to the ground, but although he had his hands up in the air, he did not comply. Officer Bray and I forced
1 - Right to ... to the kitchen floor, and Officer Bray placed handcuffs on him.
1 - Right to ... continued to repeat that he wanted to show us video. He said he had video showing that he had asked 1 - Right to Privacy to leave the
residence.
Officer Bray informed 1 - Right to ... he was being detained.
After we had handcuffed, we allowed him to sit, and 1 - Right to ... again asked us to allow him to show us video of him asking
1 - Right to ...
1 - Right to Privacy to leave. Officer McNannay went with 1 - Right to Privacy into the bedroom to speak with her, and Officer Bray and I moved
1 - Right to P... to the sofa area to talk with him about the video he wanted to show us.
Officer Bray and Sergeant Dornes went on to interview 1 - Right to ... for several minutes before Sergeant Dornes advised 1 - Right to P... verbally of his
full Miranda rights in paragraph #23.
Officer Bray’s BWC video (#201701291820) and Sergeant Dornes’ BWC video (#201701291820) show Officer Bray and Sergeant Dornes
pushing the defendant down onto the floor, and Officer Bray informing him he was being detained. Officer Bray’s advisement to 1 - Right to ... of
his detainment is shown to be at 2:35 minutes into Dornes’ BWC video recording. After Officer Bray and Sergeant Dornes spoke with
1 - Right to ... for several minutes, including allowing1 - Right to P... to show them a video which he had repeatedly asked to show. Sergeant Dornes’
BWC video shows Dornes verbally advised 1 - Right to ... of his Miranda rights at approximately 13:13 minutes into the BWC recording, which
was 10 minutes and 38 seconds after Officer Bray had told 1 - Right to ... he was being detained.
Interview of Officer Bray:
Officer Bray was interviewed on November 1, 2017 @ 1400 hrs in the Pullman Police Department conference room. The interview was
recorded on Axon BWC video (Axon file #201711011358) with the permission of Officer Bray and his attorney, Trevor Caldwell. (See
Dornes Axon BWC video file #201711011358 for details.)
Officer Bray was read a written Garrity Advisement, which was signed by Officer Bray, PPOG Attorney Trevor Caldwell and this
investigator. (Original signed copy is attached to the file.)
The following is a transcript of the interview questions and answers. (See BWC video for full details):
This interview is a part of an Internal Affairs investigation (IA 17-18) in which you are the subject or a witness of all or part of the events


which may be related to this investigation.
May I have your permission to use an Axon camera to audio and visually record our conversation?
Q: or Numeral) = Dornes
A: = Bray
1)Please state your name and spell it.
A: Josh Bray.
2)Are you employed by the City of Pullman, and commissioned as a General Authority Peace Officer as defined in RCW 10.39.020?
A: Yes.
3)Did you complete and submit the following police reports?

17-P05541 regarding a DUI arrest of 1 - Right to Privacy on 05/21/2017
17-P05435 regarding a DUI arrest of 1 - Right to P... on 05/20/2017
17-P01233 regarding an arrest of 1 - Right to Privacy on 01/29/2017
A:Yes, to all three.
4)Were you on-duty and working in that capacity on the early morning hours of May 21, 2017?
A:Yes.
5)Did you conduct a traffic stop of 1 - Right to Privacy that morning?
A: Yes
6)What time did you initiate the traffic stop?
A: Approximately 2:30 in the morning.
7)The Spillman radio log shows the dispatcher logged the initiation of your traffic stop at 0232 hrs, and your report indicates you initiated the
traffic stop at 0201 hrs. Do you have any explanation for the discrepancy?
A: No, I do not.
8)Your report indicates you followed 1 - Right to... ’s vehicle as it turned eastbound onto Stadium Way, and observed the vehicle essentially
“straddling” the striped white lines (ie. The lane divider lines). Did you see white stripes at the time?
A: At the time, I did.
Q: So, the lines were - How would you describe their visibility to you?
A: They were faint. Um. I know it was… I mean, yeah, they were faint. At least in the portion where he was.
Q: Did you believe they were observable enough that as driver should have been able to see them?
A: Yeah.


9)What was the reason for your traffic stop?
A: The reason for the traffic stop was Improper Lane Usage and Failing to Signal for his turn to the right lane at least 100 feet before.
Q: Did you document that he didn’t signal when he turned right?
A: I don’t believe that I did. I think I just document that he abruptly, or quickly… sharply is I think the word I used, changed lanes.
Q: Yeah, I’m not referring to the lane change, I’m referring to the turn onto Stadium Way.
A: He signaled that.
Q: OK, so the reason for the stop was Improper Lane Usage, and then Failing to Signal as he…
A: As he went around the car in front of him on NE Stadium Way.
Q: So, Failing to Signal was a violation because…? Could you explain that, what was it that he was obligated to do by law, that he didn’t do?
A: He has to signal at least 100 feet before making any change of direction in a vehicle.
Q: OK. He was straddling the lanes at the time, right?
A: Uh Huh [positive gesture]
Q: Did he violate the statute by using a horn improperly before this point in time?
A: He did use his horn.
Q: Was it appropriate and lawful?
A: I not familiar with the RCW on the horn usage. I haven’t reviewed that, so, I wouldn’t be able to say.
Q: I think your report states that … the second white sedan ANL7307, was honking the horn repeatedly at the vehicle in front of it. …etc
etc….. So, you’re unfamiliar with the law regarding horn usage?
A: I wouldn’t stop for it. I’m unfamiliar with that.
10)After you stopped the car, and, did you contact the driver, and was that 1 - Right to ... ?
A: Yes.
11)Did you perform a vertical nystagmus test on1 - Right to Pri... during the field sobriety tests?
A: Yes
12)What is the purpose of the vertical nystagmus test?
A: As far as - from what I know, uh, it is to determine whether or not he’s had enough liquor or intoxicants that his body is not used to. So,
over his tolerance level is what it would indicate, is my understanding of it.
13)Is it part of your training with regard to conducting standardized field sobriety tests?


A: Yes. There’s not a “clue,” just a test.
Q: As part of your training, the vertical nystagmus test is part of conducting the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests?
A: Yes
14)What were your observations during the vertical nystagmus test?
A: That there was no vertical nystagmus.
15)There is no mention of the vertical nystagmus test in your report. Why would that be?
A: I don’t know. The only thing that I can think of was that I didn’t see nystagmus, and there wasn’t a result.
16)During the one-leg stand test, your report indicates the following:
1.“I told him to stay in that position until I told him to start.”
2.“I told him to keep both of his legs straight and his arms at his sides.”
3.“He said he understood the test.”
Did each of the three items above occur?
A: I, I did, I believe they occurred. Just not in the order in which I put them.
Q: So, are you saying it occurred in a different place in the report? Let’s clarify that.
A: I don’t. Well, did you say arms at his sides?
Q: The second one was “I told him to keep both of his legs straight and his arms at his sides.”
A: That happened as he was doing the test. After he started I explained to him to keep his legs straight.
Q: So, during the actual performance of the test, at one point you tell 1 - Right to ... to “keep your legs straight.” Are you saying you also told him
to keep his arms at his sides during the test?
A: No. I am saying I told him … the legs straight. That one I can affirm. I, I [unintelligible] to him.
Q: So the part about “…and his arms at his sides,” did not occur then?
A: In that sentence, no. At that time, I told him to keep both of his legs straight and his arms at his sides. No, I told him to keep his arms at
his sides in the initial instructions.
Q: So, if you have the report in front of you, you can see here [I read the paragraph of SFST instructions for the One Leg Stand test from
the report narrative, “I told 1 - Right to P... to stand with his feet together and his arms at his sides. I told him to stay in that position until I told him
to start. He said he understood. I told 1 - Right to ... that when instructed to, he would lift the leg of his choice approximately six inches off of the
ground with his toe pointed out. I told him to keep both of his legs straight and his arms at his sides. I told him to count out loud, 1001,
1002, 1003 and so on until I instructed him to stop. I explained to him that I wanted him to look at his raised foot. I told 1 - Right to ... that if he
put his foot down, he was to raise it back up and to continue counting from where he left off. I demonstrated the test. He said he
understood the test. I asked him to begin.” Is that accurate in your opinion?
A: From what’s written?
Q: Yes.


A: I mean, that’s what is written, yes. But, again, like I said. The leg straight occurred at a different time.
Q: So, the “arms at his side,” that statement, did or did not occur at a different time, in the report- Correction: In the actual scene, did you
tell him to keep his arms at his side?
A: Yes, I believe at the very beginning of the instructions.
Q: What about the statement, “I told him to stay in that position until I told him to start.” Did that occur?
A: I did tell him to stay in that position. I don’t believe I told him, “until I … start.” I don’t know that exact phrasing happened. But I did tell
him to stay in that position.
Q: So he would logically have to start at some point. He can’t just stay in that position forever, right?
A: Right.
Q: Is it part of your training that you tell him to stay in that position until he is told to begin, or until he is told to start?
A: Correct.
Q: And, that did not occur?
A: Correct.
Q: Did he - You stated that he said he understood the test. Did he state to you that he understood the test?
A: I don’t recall that portion of it. Uh..
Q: But that is in your written report?
A: It is.
Q: Do you have any explanation for that?
A: Yep, I do. I have a, I think a bad habit of using the template and forgetting to delete things. And not all the typing is typed. I’ve noticed
that a couple of times in this report. The template is my problem.
Q: Would that be true for each of these items that we talked about..
A: (Interrupting) Yep
Q:…that is different from
A: (Interrupting) Yes
Q:…what appears to be in the video versus what is in your written report?
A: Yep.
Q: That would include the “arms to the side”? That would include that “he said he understood the test” and that…


A: (Interrupting) Yes.
Q: That would include that he was told to stay in position until he was told to begin?
A: [Nodded in the affirmative]
Q: Do you believe that the template is a tool to help us be more efficient in writing our reports?
A: I believe after this incident, I have greatly found out that it is a guideline to be used as such, not a…
Q: (Interrupting) OK, so do you believe … I’m sorry to cut you off. And not a what?
A: Not a report to fit things in. It needs to just be a guideline, at least for me.
Q: Do you- Would you agree that a template is similar to when we have people transcribe our dictations that it’s our responsibility, you’re
responsibility, to edit those results and make sure they are accurate.
A: Yes
Q: So, let me tell you what I think you told me, and tell me if I’m wrong.
A: OK
Q: Or where I’m wrong.
A: That you have made a habit of using the template, and that you’ve called it a downfall, or that’s it’s a bad habit of using the template. But
are you saying that you just inadvertently… is that what you’re saying? Or you did not edit the report as you should have? What is it you’re
saying?
A: What I’m saying is, the template is written as such, in a certain way. I have a habit of using that template with things put in, and not
taking things out or changing to the correct chronological order, or what it may be. Just using the template as it is, instead of as a
guideline. So yes, the inadvertent wording in some reports are me not properly going through the template.
Q: Or, improperly not editing.
[Trevor Caldwell asked a clarifying question to Officer Bray:
Caldwell:On the templates, is it a standard practice in the department for others in the department to use these templates as well, when
they’re writing their reports?
Bray:As far as I know, yeah.
Caldwell:So, other officers are using that tool as well?
Bray:And I think that they, some officers have their own templates, and they’ve been doing this much longer than I have, and theirs is the
same every time, and…
Caldwell:And with this particular template that you have used, and that you used in this case, the elements of the template, the ones that
you’re referring to specifically regarding the tests you administered, let me know if this is a accurate description of how you fill a template
out.
The template explains how the test is administered, and you administered those tests according to how the template described them, but
the exact order that you did things in during the stop may be somewhat different than what’s in the templates, but the elements are all there.
Bray:For the most part, yes.


Dornes:I just want to clarify, that they weren’t all there in this case. There are several items which were stated in the report that did not
occur.”
Bray:Right, that’s why I said “for the most part.” But not all.
17)So would you agree that, I’m kind of repeating myself, because I’ve used templates in the past for DUI’s myself, and we’ve all been on
traffic stops where things don’t go according to plan, or things are out of order, things that come up at the last second that causes you to
maybe change the location where you do the field sobriety tests, or somebody interrupts you, or whatever it may be, that in the end, it is
always our responsibility, and it was your responsibility, to edit and make sure that the report is accurate according to what happened.
A: Yes.
18)Prior to giving the PBT test, your report states in part, “ 1 - Right to... told me he didn’t have anything to drink within the last 15 minutes and he
said he didn’t have anything in his mouth.”
Did 1 - Right to ... tell you he “didn’t have anything in his mouth?”
A: No.
Q: If not, then do you have any explanation for why this statement is documented in your report, when it didn’t happen? Are you saying the
same thing on this one?
A: Yeah. I noticed that.
19) Regarding the Draeger BAC, now we’re now at the station with the Draeger BAC in the police department with 1 - Right to... : In your report,
you stated “At 310 hrs, I checked 1 - Right to ... ’s mouth for any foreign substances and material. I did not find anything foreign in his mouth.”
The time was noted as done at “0310” on the Implied Consent Warnings page of the DUI packet.
Q: Did you check his mouth?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you go about checking his mouth?
A: 1 - Right to Pr... was talking, uh, quite a bit. And his mouth was very visible. I didn’t do it the typical way. And I didn’t ask him. I just looked.
Q: What does your training indicate on how you are to check his mouth?
A: As far as my training goes. Typically, you are to have him open his mouth, lift up his tongue and to ask him if he had anything foreign in
his mouth, prior to checking.
Q: So your training was to have him open his mouth, check his mouth, and ask him if he had anything foreign in his mouth. So, why did you
vary from that training on this particular time, then?
A: I think, you know, going back, this was back in May, I think my train of thought was. I don’t know, to be honest with you.
17-P5435 DUI
20)Were you on-duty and working on the evening hours of May 20, 2017 at 2327 hrs?
A: Yes.


21)Did you conduct a traffic stop o 1 - Right to Pri... that night?
A.Yes.
22)In your report, you stated in part, “At 2355 hrs, I checked 1 ... ’s mouth for any foreign substances and material. I did not find anything
foreign in her mouth.” Did you check her mouth?
A.I honestly don’t recall this one. I haven’t reviewed it. Um. It’s written exactly the same way as the last one.
[NOTE: Caldwell asked if they could take a break to review this DUI case and the BWC video. We agreed to meet after approximately 5 to
10 minutes. I turned off the AXON recording device at 28:49 minutes into the recording, and restarted it at 1452 hrs. Officer Bray and
Attoney Trevor Caldwell provided permission to record again.]
23)Did you check her mouth?
A: So, I did not recall checking her mouth. I have reviewed the video, and it doesn’t appear that I asked her to check her mouth.
Q: So you don’t recall? Or you didn’t check her mouth? Or you did check her mouth?
A: I don’t recall at this time. But in reviewing the video, I did not ask her.
17-P01233 Assault / DV
24)Do you believe that documentation of the chronology of events in a police report is important with regard to Criminal Procedure?
A: Yes
25)Your report indicates in part, after entering the apartment, “ 1 - Right ... did not follow commands and walked towards me. I grabbed him by
the arm and guided him to the ground and placed handcuffs on 1 - Right ... . 1 - Right ... kept saying he had a video that he wanted us to see. I
notified 1 - Right t... that he was being detained. Sgt. Dornes notified 1 - Right t... of his full Miranda rights. Officer McNannay escorted 1 - Righ... to
interview her in the back bedroom. I frisked the couch and found a sharp medium sized kitchen knife under the cushion.”
However, your BWC (and Sgt. Dornes’ BWC) does not indicate Sgt. Dornes’ reading of Miranda rights occurred at that time, but later, that
was after 1 - Right to ... was seated on the couch and after some questioning had already taken place.
Do you have any explanation for the discrepancy in your written police report with the video?
A: Nope. I believe I remember this, and it should have read, “Sergeant Dornes later notified 1 - Right ... .” But in reality I should have put it
chronologically in there when it happened.
This investigator asked Attorney Trevor Caldwell if he had any questions he would like to ask.
Caldwell: Going back to the two DUI cases: Have you received additional training on DUI procedures?
Bray:I have attended the BAC Draeger class, the full class. On October 19.
Caldwell:Had you attended that class before? Or was this the first time you did?
Bray:This was the first full class since the academy. My BAC training was in the academy.
Caldwell:So, since the police academy, you have had no additional training on these procedures?


I asked Officer Bray if there were any questions or comments he may want to say that I had not asked him about. He replied, “No, I think
through all this, I just realize that I was really relying on a template that was getting me in trouble. I found a problem area of mine, and I’ll
clean it up.”
This interview of Officer Bray was ended at 1457 hrs.
-end-
Investigation Resources:
Pullman PD case report #17-P05435 DUI

Pullman PD case report #17-P05441 DUI
Pullman PD case report #17-P01233 Assault
Bray Axon BWC video (File #201705202332) 17-P05435
Dornes Axon BWC video (File #201705210235) 17-P05441
Dornes Axon BWC video (File # 201701291820) 17-P01233
Officer Bray interview on November 1, 2017 (Axon video file #201711011358)
Recommendations:
(Recommendations are made by reviewer who is person of management level rank i.e., lieutenant or support services manager).
11-10-17
Cmdr. Tennant’s Recommendation and findings on LEA 17-18 Ofc. Bray
As per Chapter 8 – Discipline Section 2.26 Dispositions of allegations of misconduct I find/recommend that a conclusion of “Sustained – the
allegation was supported by proper and sufficient evidence” on both policy violations Chapter 7 Section 2.2.4 Performance of duties in a
competent manner and Chapter 13 Section 2.20 Completion of reports (accuracy).
Sgt. Dornes outlines numerous and substantial variations between Bray’s written/signed report narratives and the BWC recordings of those
same instances on three separate reports. The result of these failures in accuracy are very material to the legal status of all three of these
cases and bring into question the credibility of Officer Bray.
When questioned about the differences between his BWC recordings and his signed reports he admitted that he used a template format on
his reports and did not proof read them sufficiently. He also characterized his reports as accurate “for the most part.”
“For the most part” accuracy is not a standard taught, nor sufficient in a legal arena. Without credibility, Officer Bray is of no use to use as
an officer at the PPD. One cannot conclude that Ofc. Bray intentionally lied, but the reader can see and conclude that neglect is evident.
We need to make this point apparent, and retrain, and supervise the next several DUI’s.
Discipline Recommended: Forty (40) hours off without pay.
From: Tennant, Chris

Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 1:54 PM
To: Jenkins, Gary <gary.jenkins@pullman-wa.gov>


Cc: Dornes, Dan <Dan.Dornes@pullman-wa.gov>
Subject: RE: Officer Bray
….Sgt. Dornes, Please review the below email, and review (roughly) the case, so we can discuss on Monday Morning. ASAP, I am giving
you the directive that Ofc. Bray can’t arrest any DUI until this IA is complete and he has completed (suggestively) the basic certification
course for the BAC….If he stops a car with a suspected DUI, have him turn the case over to another PPD officer, or outside agency.
Cmdr. Chris
As stated above, I had previously given Sgt. Dornes direction to have Ofc. Bray not arrest any DUI’s until this IA is complete. I would lift
this ban, as Ofc. Bray did attend the full BAC class on Oct. 19th. However, I would require that for the next 5 DUI arrests made by Ofc.
Bray that the Supervisor/OIC and/or FTO be called in to /witness/supervise the DUI processing to make sure standards are met and that
the written report is reflective of the actions taken. I would also recommend to the Prosecutor that they drop all charges on all DUI reports
where Bray is a material witness that are still pending.
Classification of Complaint:
(Completed by Reviewer)
ACCIDENT
( ) Motor Vehicle Accident( ) Other Accident
MISCONDUCT
( ) Demeanor ( ) Harassment( ) Negligence
( ) Illegal Search( ) False Arrest( ) Excessive Force
( X ) Violation of City/Department Policy( ) Crime
( ) Other:
FOR CHIEF OF POLICE ONLY
Result of Investigation:
Accident:( ) Unavoidable( ) Avoidable

( ) Driver Judgement Error( ) Driver Negligence
( ) Minor Misconduct( ) Serious Misconduct
Finding Allegation of Misconduct:( ) Exonerated( ) Unfounded

( ) Not Sustained( X ) Sustained
( ) Minor Misconduct
( ) Major Misconduct
Discipline:
After a greivance to the City Supervisor, discipline is a written reprimand and one day off without pay; the day off without pay is held in
abeyance.
( ) None
( ) Administered/Nature:
Date Administered:


December 29, 30, 31 2017
Policy or Policies Violated:
Chapter 7, Section. 2.2: Performance of Basic Duties in a Competent Manner

Members of the department will perform their assigned duties in a competent manner. Incompetence may be demonstrated by:
1.A lack of knowledge of the policies and procedures of the assigned task; or
2.A lack of knowledge of laws to be enforced; or
3.An unwillingness to perform assigned tasks; or
4.The failure to conform to work standards established for the member’s rank or position; or
5.The failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, instance of disorder, or other incident directly related to the member's
position; or
6.Repeated performance evaluations showing substandard performance.
Chapter 13, Section 2.20: Completion of Reports

Members will complete all reports in a truthful, accurate, legible manner and submit them through proper channels immediately upon
completion. Reports shall include notices of infractions and criminal citations.
( ) Prior Corrective Action of a Similar Nature
( ) This report expires on __________________________ unless misconduct of a

nature occurs.

Redaction Date: Friday, December 14, 2018 11:01:24 AM
Total Number of Redactions: 92
By Exemption:
"RCW 42.56.050 - Invasion of privacy occurs if the disclosure of information 1. would be

highly offensive to a reasonable person and 2. is not of legitimate concern to the public. "
(Right to Privacy): 92 instances
By Page:
Page 3 - "RCW 42.56.050 - Invasion of privacy occurs if the disclosure of information 1.

would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and 2. is not of legitimate concern to the
public. " (Right to Privacy): 3 instances

17-18 Inaccurate Reports (Sustained)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

17-18 Inaccurate Reports (Sustained)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pullman Police Department

Complete Details For 17-18

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

Location Occurred: Not Stated District/Area: Not Stated

Cell Phone: Business Phone: Email Address:

Summary: Prosecutor complaint of inaccuracies in Bray's police report.

Type Of Complaint Description Complaint Disposition

Name ID Number Rank Division Shift Officer Disposition On Alert Camera

Narrative: Prosecutor complaint of inaccuracies in police report. (17-P05441, 17-P05435, 17-P01233)

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

Date Complaint/Allegation Received by the Department:

Manner Complaint/Allegation Received:

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

Member Receiving Complaint:

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:23:09 PM Page 1 of20

Complete Details For 17-18

Date of Alleged Incident:

On or about 05/21/2017 to 06/21/2017.

Location of Alleged Incident:

Pullman Police Department

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

Denis Tracy, Whitman County Prosecuting Attorney

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:23:09 PM Page 2 of20

Complete Details For 17-18

From: Denis Tracy [mailto:DenisT@co.whitman.wa.us]

Member(s) Against Whom Complaint is Alleged:

BRAY, Joshua Craig / Patrol Officer / Police Officer 3rd Class

Name and Rank of Person Assigned Investigation:

DORNES, Daniel Lee / Sergeant

Date Assigned to the Investigator:

Written Notice of the Nature of an Investigation issued 08/02/2017

Date Investigation Completed:

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:23:09 PM Page 3 of20

Complete Details For 17-18

Summary of Allegations and Investigation:

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:23:09 PM Page 4 of20

Complete Details For 17-18

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:23:09 PM Page 5 of20

Complete Details For 17-18

1)An examination of the mouth, or

The following is the actual Washington Administrative Code text:

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:23:09 PM Page 6 of20

Complete Details For 17-18

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:23:09 PM Page 7 of20

Complete Details For 17-18

12.The pre-arrest observations section was not completed.

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:23:09 PM Page 8 of20

Complete Details For 17-18

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:23:09 PM Page 9 of20

Complete Details For 17-18

“Officer McNannay escorted 1 - Right... to interview her in the back bedroom.”

Sergeant Dornes’ statement in paragraphs #5, #6, #7 and #8 of supplement #5 states:

Officer Bray informed 1 - Right to ... he was being detained.

Interview of Officer Bray:

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:23:09 PM Page 10 of20

Complete Details For 17-18

1)Please state your name and spell it.

3)Did you complete and submit the following police reports?

A:Yes, to all three.

5)Did you conduct a traffic stop of 1 - Right to Privacy that morning?

6)What time did you initiate the traffic stop?

A: Approximately 2:30 in the morning.

L.E.A. Data Technologies ADMINISTRATIVE Database 12/12/2018 2:23:09 PM Page 11 of20