Olsen flashed badge to try to see judge

April 14, 2009 in City

Thomas Clouse
The Spokesman-Review

The Spokane Police Department’s internal investigation into former Officer Jay Olsen shows that officials could have charged him with a crime a year before his trial, because he tried to discuss his case with the judge assigned to preside over his trial.

Olsen quit Monday rather than submit to an interview with Police Chief Ann Kirkpatrick, who had previously informed the suspended officer that she intended to fire him for multiple violations of department policy, including carrying a loaded handgun while consuming alcohol.

Olsen was drunk when he chased Shonto Pete on March 27, 2006, and shot him in the head as Pete fled down an embankment into Peaceful Valley. Pete was exonerated on the car theft charge, and a different jury acquitted Olsen in March during his trial for first-degree assault for shooting Pete.

However, Kirkpatrick concluded in a subsequent internal investigation, released Tuesday, that Olsen violated several conduct rules.

“Your judgment and decision-making was impaired as you chased this suspect to a point where you used deadly force,” Kirkpatrick wrote. “You have brought discredit upon the Spokane Police Department and the law enforcement profession.”

In the same letter, Kirkpatrick said Olsen three times approached the assistant to Superior Court Judge Ellen Kalama Clark before his trial. The assistant, Tracy Pilkinton, told investigators that Olsen flashed a badge on March 13, 2008, as he tried to gain access to Clark’s chambers. He tried again twice the next day.

He was on unpaid suspension from the police force and had been ordered to turn over all his badges.

Olsen also left a letter for the judge to read.

The judge — who did not end up hearing the case — reported the incidents to prosecutors and police officials. Kirkpatrick asked City Attorney Howard Delaney to see whether charges were warranted.

“You tried to gain entrance to the chambers of a judge who was scheduled to try your criminal case in order to discuss matters which the judge was prohibited from discussing with you,” Kirkpatrick wrote. “The evidence in the record including your own statements convince me that you wanted the clerk to believe you were a police officer whether you actually flashed a badge or not.”

Delaney said in documents that Olsen’s conduct “appears to be a relatively plain violation of” criminal impersonation in the second degree, which is a gross misdemeanor. Olsen created the impression that he was a police officer, flashed a badge and a reasonable person would have believed he was an officer, which fit three elements needed for the crime, Delaney wrote.

But in the same letter, Delaney explained that since the violation was not based on a municipal law, it needed to be handled by the Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office. Reached at home Tuesday by City Spokeswoman Marlene Feist, Delaney said he was unsure what happened to the case.

Delaney, who has been out sick, is expected to research the matter today when he returns to work , Feist said.

Rob Cossey, who successfully defended Olsen, said he never discussed the situation with prosecutors and believes the matter concerning the judge visits should be dead.

“I don’t know why they thought they could charge something on that,” Cossey said. “It’s a minor incident that happened over a whole complicated mess of this whole thing. It’s a tiny thing that got blown out of proportion, in my opinion.”

In his resignation letter, Olsen referred to the incident.

“While I did not fully appreciate that my attempt to discuss the timing of my case schedule directly with Judge Clark was improper at the time I did it, and while I did not intend to portray myself as a police officer to Judge Clark’s clerk, I can see, in retrospect, that she could easily have interpreted my having displayed my drivers license … as having conveyed the impression that I was acting as a police officer,” he wrote.

“To the extent that this incident caused the department to have to discuss things with either the court or the prosecutor’s office, I am sorry.”

Reporter Meghann Cuniff contributed to this report. Contact Thomas Clouse at tomc@spokesman.com or (509) 459-5495.

19 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

Pat OLeary on April 14 at 9:03 p.m.
Just one more incident in the sad litany of the Spokane PD. Another case that just isn't worth pursuing by the prosecutor, but then again, when the police are involved, it seems that most aren't. It is time for some massive shake-ups in our criminal justice system.

Flag as inappropriate
Ed F on April 14 at 9:25 p.m.
The prosecutors are a joke in this matter and all other matters concerning players inside the system.

Flag as inappropriate
Charlie on April 14 at 9:35 p.m.
Thank God I'm not a resident of Spokane. The SPD is making the Keystone kops look good and the prosecutors are akin to the 3 Stooges, sorry Stooges, at least you guys were funny.
Hopefully, with enough pressure the Otto Zehm killers will get the axe soon.

Flag as inappropriate
ChefGus on April 14 at 9:45 p.m.
So, a procedural question?? Why could/would not the Chief Fire this guy BEFORE he tendered his resignation… was she “thinking” on it before acting?? or was there collusion so this guy could get another police force job elsewhere?? Acting TOO slowly is not acting at all…. coulda had a V-8 here chief, and perhaps helped your poor reputation some… slow on the uptake this time… john

Flag as inappropriate
Gramma on April 14 at 9:46 p.m.
It wasn't against department policy for an officer to carry a gun into a bar at the time this incident occurred… Policy changed immediately after this happened.

So, how can he be fired for that if it wasn't against the law? Other things happening? Yes. He can be fired for those.

Flag as inappropriate
misjustice on April 14 at 9:58 p.m.
Incredible! Since the verdict was handed down, I have wondered why the prosecutor couldn't bring it, couldn't impeach the 911 call testimony, couldn't get the defense to stipulate to Mr. Pete being adjudicated not guilty on the vehicle theft charge (instead of letting the jury get the impression that Mr. Pete DID steal the truck), why, why, why???

Now, after reading the latest installment of the continuing drama of Mr. “I Have a Secret” Olsen, I wonder if it isn't just a matter of course for police officers to cozy up to judges and other officers of the court in order to influence the legal outcome (or at least try to)? Is this the way that business is routinely done, or an anomoly?

Even a casual student of the law recognizes that Olsen's attempt to contact any judge or other officer of the court regarding his case is out of line; certainly an officer with Olsen's training, experience, and years on the force knows. And yet, he did it anyway. Again, I ask, why? Is it because the “rules” don't apply to SPD???

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Flag as inappropriate
D Walker on April 15 at 12:50 a.m.
Another one down, a whole bunch more to go!!!! Starting with the top down. What a bunch of pathetic sociopaths.

Flag as inappropriate
D Walker on April 15 at 12:58 a.m.
Another one down, a whole bunch more to go!!!! Starting with the top down. What a bunch of pathetic sociopaths. And, regarding the previous comment about wondering if they, “the cops” cozy up with judges and prosecutors, etc., stop in at that watering hole next to the court house, barneys or whatever, you can find all and every representatives in there from the bottom up in our little justice system.

Flag as inappropriate
shamrock on April 15 at 8:13 a.m.
I have to ask. Olsen received $150,000 in back pay, which I am assuming comes from taxpayers. If an investigation finds police misconduct does he have to give this back? I don't appreciate paying this.

Flag as inappropriate
jenny on April 16 at 2:00 a.m.
Gramma,
Olsen resigned in lieu of being fired. A lot of people who are faced with being fired choose to resign. It looks better on their resume's when they apply for another job. If Olsen gets a job elsewhere he will just say he resigned from this one. Knowing him he will leave off the part that says “in lieu of being fired.” However, if he didn't resign he would have been fired because he violated too much policy including lying during an investigation. It was more or less a forced resignation. He is a very guilty man who needs reform. Perhaps you can help him on a journey towards honesty. He should start by being honest to you since you are a gramma and deserve to be respected.
Bless your heart for caring.

Flag as inappropriate