Spokane7
61°
December 14, 2011 in City
Prosecutor defends decision-making
Tucker offers responses to recall petition’s points
Prosecutor Steve Tucker said Tuesday that he sees nothing in a petition to recall him except “rumors and hearsay, and ‘facts’ that are not true.”
The petition for a recall election was organized by Shannon Sullivan, who led the successful recall drive against Spokane Mayor Jim West in 2005.
Sullivan accuses Tucker of failing to perform his duty in several cases, including prosecution of police misconduct in the 2006 death of Otto Zehm and attempts to cover it up.
Tucker said he had no indication of a cover-up when Mayor Dennis Hession asked the FBI to investigate, and he still has no formal report, nor a request from law enforcement to file charges in the Zehm case.
“I still haven’t gotten a referral from law enforcement, and that’s how we operate,” Tucker said.
To preserve his objectivity, he said he deliberately didn’t monitor the trial at which a Yakima County federal jury convicted now-retired Officer Karl Thompson on Nov. 2 of using excessive force and lying to investigators.
He said a state double-jeopardy statute and a higher standard of proof would make it “really hard” to bring state charges against Thompson.
However, Tucker said, “I know a bunch of the officers changed their testimony, and the other officers could be facing charges.”
Tucker makes no apology for the law enforcement perspective that caused him to find no fault in security videos that showed Thompson clubbing the mentally handicapped janitor as Zehm clutched a 2-liter bottle of pop in a convenience store.
Tucker was a Washington State Patrol trooper from 1973 to 1984.
Thompson thought he was responding to a felony in progress and didn’t know whether Zehm had a knife or a gun, Tucker said.
“If an officer comes in and says, ‘Drop the pop,’ you should drop the pop,” Tucker said. Otherwise, “he’s got to take some other actions to try to control you to see if a felony actually occurred or not.”
Tucker said he has been prepared to evaluate any evidence the FBI sends him, but the recall allegations will cause him to consider appointing a special prosecutor – perhaps someone from the state Attorney General’s Office.
The recall petition says Tucker stated publicly that he won’t prosecute police officers, a claim he said is false and “sets the tone for the whole thing.”
“How could I say I wouldn’t prosecute police officers when I already have?” he said. “We’re in the process of collecting names, but I believe there are seven or eight police officers we have prosecuted.”
He said they include Spokane police officers James “Jay” Olsen and Jay Mehring.
A jury acquitted Olsen of first-degree assault and reckless endangerment in his off-duty shooting of an unarmed, fleeing man in February 2007. Mehring, charged with felony harassment of his wife, also was acquitted by a jury.
Sullivan attributes the allegation that Tucker said he won’t prosecute police to Ron Wright, a retired detective from Southern California who has been a prolific writer of online comments under the name “Rocketsbrain.”
“He has no credibility in this office,” Tucker said.
A related allegation that Tucker stated he won’t prosecute public employees is attributed to Spokane City Councilman Bob Apple. Tucker said it’s possible he said he wouldn’t prosecute employees in his own office, but he seeks outside prosecutors for cases involving staff members or close relatives.
Public employees outside his office are prosecuted routinely, Tucker said.
The recall petition also cites Spokane firefighter Daniel W. Ross’s lack of prosecution for having sex with a 16-year-old girl in a firehouse in 2006.
Tucker said there were problems with the evidence in that case, including the fact that police detectives ordered Ross to delete photos of the encounter from his digital camera.
However, Tucker said, “We got a second shot at him and convicted him.” A jury found Ross guilty of fourth-degree assault with sexual motivation for molesting another 16-year-old girl in 2007.
Sullivan’s petition also faults Tucker for a recent decision to drop felony charges against a man who allegedly fired shots into a neighbor’s home – and for failure to obey a judge’s order to come to court and explain the decision.
Tucker said District Court Judge Debra Hayes had no authority to order him to appear personally, citing the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government.
The incident began Nov. 14, when Deputy Prosecutor Steve Garvin acknowledged to Hayes that reducing seven counts of first-degree assault to two counts of misdemeanor reckless endangerment was “extraordinary.”
“But Mr. Tucker has approved it, so I’m going to recommend it to the court,” Garvin said.
The purpose of dropping the felony charges was to get defendant Lucas J. Merrill, 28, into a “therapy court” for military veterans.
Tucker failed to show up Nov. 22 as directed, and Hayes sent the case back to Superior Court, where the felony charges are still pending.
Tucker said he directed Garvin to reduce the charges to misdemeanors so Merrill would be eligible for the veterans court, but the deal called for the same 90-day sentence Garvin had already offered.
Tucker said he conferred with District Court Judge Vance Peterson, who ran the veterans court until he was summoned to military duty in October.
Peterson agreed to take the case, but Hayes said she and a probation officer feared federal funding might be jeopardized because the court wasn’t supposed to handle “serious, violent” cases.
Tucker said he changed his mind about the deal because of new information, and Garvin would have taken it off the table if the Nov. 22 hearing had proceeded.
Peterson couldn’t be reached Tuesday, and Garvin declined to comment.
County districts nearly equal in population after latest adjustment 
Ron_the_Cop on December 14 at 5:45 a.m.
Mr. Craig,
A good article and I trust the voters will see Tucker for the clueless and inept prosecutor his is.
As to Tucker’s action in the Zehm case I find his explanation totally disingenuous. Tucker was doing his usual MO in simply reviewing what LE provided him in officer involved shootings/deaths (OIS/OIDs). Tucker never steps outside of the box and initiates his own inquiries. There is the pattern and practice of the high level LE leaders in our community with Tucker at the lead in sweeping problematic OIS/OIDs under the rug.
In the Zehm case Tucker dithered one too many times and the feds came in and did his job for him. They got a conviction on a federal criminal charge requiring the element of “willfulness” that is a much higher burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt than a “reckless disregard/criminal negligence” under state law for manslaughter - positional asphyxia compounded by the application of the “non-breather mask.” The feds have no negligent homicide and or manslaughter statute with which to prosecute the tragic death of Zehm.
Yes it was me that provided the statement by Tucker that was used in the recall statement of charges. Tucker seems to be confused though as this statement was given to me by Councilman Bob Apple. This is in a sworn declaration by me which is attached to the recall statement of charges.
On November 30, 2011 Councilman Bob Apple provided me with this statement:
While Tucker may be correct he was under no obligation to appear before Judge Hayes to explain the plea deal, his standing her up was a show of arrogance and disrespect to our rule of law, to the court and to the bench. I have no information to say this was a good and or bad deal but at least Tucker should have shown the courtesy to the bench to show up and give the judge an explanation. After all Judge Hayes had to approve the deal.
As to my credibility I will let the voters decided. However as to the credibility of Tucker in my opinion he has none and has violated his oath of office to the citizens.
And yes I have posted under the AKA Rocketsbrain but have changed to Ron the Cop now:-)
Det. Ron Wright (Retired 35 yrs Riverside PD, CA)
Principal, Ron Wright Investigations LLC (Licensed in CA & WA)
Two-term president of the Riv Police Officers’ Assn.
Master of administration, University of Cal, Riverside
Bachelors in political sci, Cal State Univ, Fullerton
(Google my name for my professional vitae)
DPA on December 14 at 6:26 a.m.
Why is it that Ron Wright helped prepare the recall petition but refuses to sign it? He was asked numerous times yesterday by Mike Fitzsimmons to do so and he refused. Is it because he wants to shield himself from the possibility that fees may be awarded against him if the recall fails in court as happened in Pierce County. There $50,000 in attorney fees were awarded.
If Mr. Wright feels this is a remote possibility then he should sign the petition. I don’t believe he will. He seems pretty comfortable having Ms. Sullivan do his dirty work for him. Finally, Mr. Fitzsimmons was left to characterize this failure to sign the petition for what it is, cowardice.
Pretty much tells you everything you need to know about Mr. Wright.
dataxman on December 14 at 7:12 a.m.
DPA - ‘Pretty much tells you everything you need to know about Mr. Wright.’
It does - it shows at this point in his life he is not willing to take a $50,000 gamble for a symbolic signature…
DPA on December 14 at 7:17 a.m.
Right dataxman, he wants Ms. Sullivan to pay for his symbolic signature
Ron_the_Cop on December 14 at 8:01 a.m.
DPA and Dataxman,
Trust me neither former Sheriff Tony Bamonte or I are cowards. This was Shannon’s decision to file using only her own name. Shannon has been wanting to launch this recall for a long time. The statement of charges is the work product of a number of people. It was Tucker’s standing up of Judge Hayes that was the last straw for all of us and brought a number of citizens together to launch this recall. We stand behind her.
This is not a frivolous action as Tucker inferred on Fitzsimmons’ show by his reference to the Pierce Co case and his threat to Shannon re having to pay his legal fees. What a chilling message Tucker is sending to the citizens that would consider taking action to hold their elected accountable to uphold their oaths of office.
Here’s a link to the Pierce County case. Perhaps you should read it and learn there are substantial differences between what Tucker has done and what the Pierce Co prosecutor was alleged to have done:
Judge tosses ‘frivolous’ bid to recall Prosecutor Mark Lindquist
A visiting judge Tuesday threw out of court a recall petition filed against Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist by the chief deputy of county Assessor-Treasurer Dale Washam.
Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/11/17/1427836/judge-tosses-frivolous-bid-to.html#ixzz1gWc21p9b
dataxman on December 14 at 8:02 a.m.
dpa - I didn’t get that from your first post. You indicated he would be at risk for attorney fees if he signed. How do you go from that to him wanting money to sign?
horse_feathers on December 14 at 8:48 a.m.
I do not think Tucker will be recalled I do not think he meets the standards required. I do think he is has been very much a key figure in the cover up of the Zehm case and a weak sister in the prosecution of the few cases he has prosecuted, Harvey comes to mind.
For him to prosecute he does not need a referral from LE, he has the power to investigate and act on his own.
I do agree with Ron though on the fact that he has been clueless and inept.
DickAdams on December 14 at 10:33 a.m.
The story quotes Tucker`s comment re the video Zehm being beat by Klubber Thompson, and Tucker says;
“Tucker makes no apology for the law enforcement perspective that caused him to find no fault in security videos that showed Thompson clubbing the mentally handicapped janitor as Zehm clutched a 2-liter bottle of pop in a convenience store.” As a concerned citizen and you viewed the tape, would you agree with Tucker?
Copying from the story;
“Sullivan attributes the allegation that Tucker said he won’t prosecute police to Ron Wright, a retired detective from Southern California who has been a prolific writer of online comments under the name “Rocketsbrain.”
“He has no credibility in this office,” Tucker said”.
Retired detective Ron Wright`s work trying to help the citizens in our community, IMO, deserves kudos. I wonder how Tucker came to his off the cuff remark about Ron??
Obviously, Tucker hasn`t taken the time to examine Ron Wright`s credentials. If he had, any sensible person would recognize the value of former Detective Ron Wright. Ron retired after 35 years of distinguished service from the Riverside, Ca.,police department. (Riverside, Ca., is a city larger than Spokane.)
When Detective Wright was serving the public in Riverside, he handled an “extremely” high profile white collar crime case, and the culprit was found guilty. The newspapers noted Ron`s value in apprehending the criminal.
If I were in trouble and needed LE for help, I would hope the officer that shows up is a straight arrow like Detective Wright.
I know one thing for sure, I`ll be signing the petition to recall county attorney, Steve Tucker.
Ron_the_Cop on December 14 at 10:37 a.m.
Horse-feathers,
Thank you for your thoughts. IMO this is a political action and not a legal one by the voters exercising their fundamental constitutional rights of redressing actions or in this case inaction by their elected.
IMO opinion Tucker’s abdication of his office and sworn duty to the citizens of Spokane amounts to malfeasance, misfeasance and a violation of his oath of office. There is a a subtle distinction between the terms misfeasance and nonfeasance. It will depend what the court will rule in reviewing the recall petition. If not malfeasance and or misfeasance I would argue that Tucker in general terms violated his oath of office.
For further read here:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/nonfeasance
Further as to Tucker’s threat to seek his legal fees from Sullivan I suggest a reading this RCW section:
RCW 29A.56.140
Determination by superior court — Correction of ballot synopsis.
Shelala on December 14 at 10:47 a.m.
I agree for the most part with horsefeathers. I think Sullivan’s petition is flawed and think Tucker”S commitment to justice in cases involving Zehm and a few others is lacking. His comments defending the police action against Zehm after viewing the tapes. suggests to me that the thin blue line runs way too deep to allow him objectivity in cases involving law enforcement.personnel. He may have filed a few of these cases, but lacked the commitment to be effective. I have a huge problem with the mere suggestion that money or finances should be used as a hammer or leverage to attempt to silence his detractor(s). Public activism shouldn’t carry price tags as if you were shopping for justice at Walmart..
Ron_the_Cop on December 14 at 11:56 a.m.
Shelala,
I’m more of an optimist regarding the recall effort. From Shannon’s email signature line:
The only way evil can prevail is if good people do nothing!
Tucker further put his foot in his mouth in this interview in the S-R. Tucker was very disingenuous and made the case for his recall if you study it in detail. It just shows Tucker’s incompetence and ineptness in office - esp about needing a law enforcement referral first before he can act. This is utter BS!
This is the little game that is played of low balling these problematic OIS/OIDs investigations by high level law enforcement officers condoned by government attorneys trying to minimize public liability with Tucker not showing any independence that his office requires.
IMO this is what happened in the Zehm case. This was very evident in the US Attorney’s Office proffer filed in April of 2010. The voters after watching the Zehm trial unfold did not return Mayor Verner to office because of her disingenuous statements about Ofc. Thompson not doing anything wrong.
And yes Tucker does prosecute some cops but he’s never got a conviction as far as my memory serves me. Some of these were low hanging fruit and he can’t get a conviction? Does this tell you something about the quality of these prosecution efforts or in the cases for other reasons Tucker had to charge - Mehring et al.
??Riddler?? on December 14 at 3:49 p.m.
?? Anyone ??
?? How many full-time paid professional investigators are directly employed by the Prosecutor’s Office ??
Ron_the_Cop on December 14 at 5:13 p.m.
Riddler,
I’ll check but I believe it’s about 100 plus divided between the civil and criminal sides. I’m guessing around 60 to 70 criminal deputies and the rest civil.
DPA on December 14 at 5:40 p.m.
Now Ron Wright calls into question the ability and integrity of the deputy prosecutors responsible for prosecuting certain cases. Seems a little funny from the guy showing a complete lack of integrity in letting Ms. Sullivan take all the risk in promoting the recall petition even though he wrote it.
How about getting out from behind Ms. Sullivan’s skirt and sign the recall petition?
We all know the answer to that question don’t we.
brianrbreen on December 14 at 6:00 p.m.
@Riddler
Unlike other prosecutors Steve Tuckers office doesn’t have any full time professional investigators they rely almost entirely on the cops. I suspect DPA would agree it wouldn’t be a bad idea if they did, but money is apparently the issue.
@DPA
You have some real god ones in that office, but it’s like anywhere else there are some bad ones.
brianrbreen on December 14 at 6:01 p.m.
I’m sorry…not god ones….good ones.
??Riddler?? on December 14 at 7:01 p.m.
?? Ron The Cop ??
?? Can you possibly post without including gratutitous references to your own ciriculum vitae??
?? Are you running for office, or merely trying to drum up business ??
?? May we direct you (gently, and politely) to the Classified Section ??
??Riddler?? on December 14 at 7:15 p.m.
?? brianrbreen or DPA ??
?? “they rely almost entirely on the cops” ??
?? ‘splain to me, how a prosecutor - without any independent investigatory staff - conducts an “investigation” of alleged police misconduct. (just trying to get a handle on the mechanics of the process) ??
ultralitigator on December 14 at 7:39 p.m.
The gang unit had an investigator. Don’t know if they still do. A lot of the larger prosecutor offices have a few. They are a godsend.
Ron_the_Cop on December 14 at 8:04 p.m.
DPA,
I’m not hiding behind anybodies skirt. I gave you a straight statement of why Sheriff Bamonte, others and me did not sign the petition. We would have both been glad to do it. I’m not running for any political office. I guess my expectations of LE et al are just higher than what goes for the norm here. So far the LE leaders have been able to snow the public until the feds got their nose under the tent in the Zehm case.
Trust me in my career I attended six police funerals of fellow officers I personally knew due to gun related incidents including ambushes. I’m very sensitive to the dangers that police face on a daily basis. Mistakes will be made as this is the nature of the business. What is unacceptable to me is when the officer’s action created his/her own exigent circumstances that led to a tragic death of a “noncombantent.” Whether criminal or not in nature, LE leadership needs to recognize and own up to when these mistakes are made and take steps to prevent them in the future. So far I’ve seen little evidence of them doing so in these problematic OIS/OIDs. The feds shouldn’t have to come in and clean up this mess that has been facilitated by poor LE leadership. Tucker by his inaction and abdication of his office has facilitated this.
Brian help me out here. I agree with your opinion. I have a close source within the prosecutors office who has said there are three groups. Those that do an excellent job day in and day out without Tucker. There are some in the middle that could stand some motivation. Then there are those that will continue and continue a case until the will eventually plead out a case and never will take a case to trial. These are the ones where Tucker’s inaction in office hurts WE THE PEOPLE.
Another source that has told me there are a number of DPs who have no great love for Tucker but must keep their heads down. I think the same can be said of SPD officers.
Ron_the_Cop on December 14 at 8:17 p.m.
DPA,
As Brian I would fully support the prosecutor’s office have its own bureau of investigations with seasoned investigators for a number of reasons. Esp I’ve advocated for a public integrity unit not only to do police corruption cases but political conflict of interests and white collar crime that seems to go untouched in this town.
In the meantime Tucker could have sent these cases back for further investigations until the PD investigators got it right and Tucker could make an informed decision whether to file or not. Instead of just saying there is insufficient evidence to file a case. Of course there will be insufficient evidence if no one does a thorough and complete criminal investigation - a certain manslaughter case I will leave unnamed.
Sorry I will call a shovel a shovel on the Jay Olsen case prosecuted by DP Steinmetz. I’ve heard good and bad things about Steinmetz. In the Olsen case not that I wish to second guess the jury’s decision but obviously the prosecution didn’t make it’s case. Were jurors allowed to sit that should have been excused? Perhaps it would have been different if this jury heard the same case after the Zehm trial as to the veracity of some police officers.
Also I think it was a fatal mistake not to call the witnesses to rebut the dispatcher’s testimony required because of the MISSING dispatch/911 call tape. Also Steinmetz and Nagy by withholding discovery to the defense in a murder case got tabbed for prosecutor mismanagement that tanked the death penalty in a murder case. The co-defendant this case got one heck of a deal from Steinmetz even though because his story kept changing he was not called to testify. I would not have inked the deal without a satisfactory performance clause.
http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2010/aug/19/guilty-verdict-in-08-murder/
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/03/prosecutors-mixup-takes-death-penalty-table/
My sources have concerns about DPA Tony Hazel who may be being groomed as Tucker’s replacement. Hazel was selected to sit on Condon’s transition public safety team. There is a case that I’m not sure has been resolved yet where there are some issues as to his competency (not mental) at least IMO.
And currently a fire needs to be built under DP Shane Smith to file a complex cat burglary case involving eight suspects that SO Det. Bob Sola did a great job in putting together without much assistance from SPD as the suspects lived in and a lot of the property was offed in the City.
These suspects entered the home of a older single female who was asleep, entered her bedroom and stole her purse and $75K in jewelry nearby. These suspects have meth issues and this burglary could have easily turned into a murder.
DP Smith has had the charging documents for nearly three weeks and still no case filing and arrest warrants yet. The prime suspect in this case is a danger to the public and needs to be off the street NOW!
This could be from Tucker’s failure to set office priorities and Smith’s desk is piled high with little direction of what to tackle first. IMO Tucker has not set priorities within his office re burglaries. My sources indicate this was one of the reasons why SPD collapsed it burglary investigation unit in favor of keeping the neighborhood resource officers. A difficult decision to make in any case forced on the SPD by Mayor Verner et al in a political shell game to cover millions in wasteful spending/programs.
Brian could you add anything for DPA’s benefit?
??Riddler?? on December 14 at 8:49 p.m.
?? Ron_the_Cop ??
?? When you have finished your Performance Reviews for the Prosecutor’s Dept, do you plan on moving on to other County Departments that can benefit from your expertise ??
?? Streets, Water, Fire ??
brianrbreen on December 14 at 8:58 p.m.
@Ron_the_Cop
That is pretty much true of any office, or any department for that matter. DPA would have some perspective on that, although perhaps not some of the back stabbing stuff. I personally have only had problems with a couple. All the others I have been involved with in my opinion really work hard and do a good job. The only criticism I would have is that have a tendency to believe everything in the police report and sometimes the reports are very wrong. In most cases they do take care of things once that’s pointed out.
I’m sure many of them would like to have Tucker more involved. But then again maybe they wouldn’t. I don’t know.
I remember there was a big deal on the 72-hour issue some time back and a consultants review of the office that wasn’t that favorable. Tucker was a no show on an important conference call with the commissioners and the consultant. He left it to Debby Kurbitz to handle and some thought that might have been a little of what you were accused above of doing.
Don’t know if that helped but that’s the way I see it.
DPA on December 14 at 9:25 p.m.
Mr. Wright, your explanation is lacking about why you didn’t sign the petition. Simply saying it was Ms. Sullivan’s decision to file this would not prevented you from doing the same if you had the courage of your convictions. At least Ms. Sullivan does. Maybe you can aspire to that someday. Keep listing the fact that you have a college degree and were a past president of a law enforcement association. Maybe someday, if you pray really hard, that will equal real courage. But since you won’t sign the petition, will you agree to indemnify Ms. Shannon if attorney’s fees are awarded against her?
Brian, you’re right regarding the investigator issue in the prosecutor’s office. The office can use some. Law enforcement is generally too busy to get back to all the little details when preparing for trial and an investigator would help. And although I may not agree with all of your opinions, your were a “real cop”. You don’t need to keep telling everyone how how good you were like Mr. Wright. No one believes him anyway.
I’ve worked for 3 prosecutor’s and I can say without hesitation this office is run better than any other I have worked in. The DPA’s are true professionals and are given the discretion to prosecute cases as they should be prosecuted. The real issue is the budget not the people doing the good work.
brianrbreen on December 14 at 9:38 p.m.
@DPA
What??? Someone doesn’t agree with all my opinions…boy, that’s never happened before.
A couple of good experienced investigators would help, as long as they weren’t retired SPD, SCSO, or WSP. They could offer a pretty good independent perspective for you gals/guys, as long as they didn’t just become subpoena servers. I know….money, but in the long run it might end up saving money.
??Riddler?? on December 14 at 9:39 p.m.
?? In response to an “in camera” message ??
?? No, I do not enjoy deflating pompous windbags. It saddens me when otherwise well-meaning people make caricatures and buffoons of themselves. ??
DPA on December 14 at 9:56 p.m.
Brian,
I agree with your last post, but I have to disagree with your post regarding the independent consultant reviewing the office regarding its structure and 72 hour rule. I met with him numerous times. He was surprised we had a 72 hour rule. Recollection is Florida, where he came from, has a 30 day rule. He couldn’t understand the reasoning behind the 72 hour limitation in Washington. Also, two things of note from his discussions with me were he was taking innovations we had come up with in Spokane back with him and he repeatedly said how much he wanted to lure our staff back with him.
He recognized the budget was the issue, but he couldn’t help with that item. If you recall, he started his report with there were no “smoking guns” where he could point out where the office was lacking. Unfortunately, that sort of stuff doesn’t get reported. I know you were/are frustrated with the lack of reporting on the good things law enforcement does. That just comes with the job.
Ron_the_Cop on December 14 at 10:22 p.m.
DPA,
You’re entitled to your opinion. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. If you care to discuss real issues I will be happy to engage in a debate.
My only purpose is to seek to improve the quality of our LE and criminal justice system by holding our elected accountable. I know there are many fine men and women doing a very difficult job day in and day out. However IMO their leaders have let them down. It’s difficult for those in the rank and file to speak out without fear of retaliation by these inept and ineffectual leaders.
I agree the prosecutors office has received the short shrift on funding. Whose problem might that be?
The public needs to be educated in order to hold the Board of Commissioners accountable for funding their less than stellar pet projects. I can name many areas where taxpayers money has been misspent to benefit a few special interests. Did I mention political conflicts of interest and white collar crime?
brianrbreen on December 14 at 10:30 p.m.
@DPA
That was a year ago and I can’t remember all the details. If I recall correctly it was a typical consultants report. I was interested because we had a big battle back in the day. Since the 72-hour rule came into existence there have always been problems, not just with Tuckers office but also with his predecessors. So it isn’t new. I don’t know if the city cops still do it but I wrote a policy once for the investigative division requiring they get a signed receipt when they submit a PC affidavit, because some had been lost in the prosecutors office and bad guys got out and hurt some people. There was a battle between the PD and the prosecutor’s office over that issue. The problem is if the cop doesn’t get it over there in a timely fashion and the bad guy gets booted from jail and kills someone the department doesn’t enjoy the immunity you folks have. On a patrol felony arrest the Detective has only maybe a day to get the affidavit to you in a timely fashion usually there is enough PC for the arrest, but I used to see far too much of it ending with just that, and very little follow up if any. So lots of time you folks aren’t getting the whole story until it’s too late. But that isn’t something that doesn’t happen all over the country, it’s not limited to Spokane.
DPA on December 14 at 10:33 p.m.
Mr. Wright,
The real issue here is that you are promoting a recall effort that you know lacks real merit. Comments by Mr. Bugbee, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Fitszimmons, just to name a few notable lawyers, are consistent in this issue. Even Doug Clark, Mr. Tucker’s greatest critic, says this is a waste of time.
Now, this recall petition will likely have real consequences. Not for Mr. Tucker because this will be thrown out of court by the judge. This action will have consequences for Ms. Sullivan who may likely be required to pay attorney’s fees because this is a frivolous action. All the while you sit back an allow this to happen. You’ve set her up and you know it. You know the real possibility of the award of attorneys fees. That’s the reason you refuse to sign onto the petition. Tell us, is Ms. Sullivan stopping you for signing the petition?
I ask you again, will you agree to indemnify Ms. Sullivan if attorneys fees are awarded? Or will you hang her out to dry?
Shelala on December 14 at 10:48 p.m.
This may be a stupid question, but Tucker seems to have has developed a reputation for not being present on the job preferring to spend his time on the golf course or on vacation. Has anyone actually determined if this is true? Has this been a matter of perception or is he truly absent? Does he carry a caseload? What’s with all the seemingly missed meetings and calls? Is it the point of contention in the recall that he is inept at his job or that he is a no show? Is he losing cases that go to a jury or failing to file cases? I know my personal opinion, but what do the facts say?
brianrbreen on December 14 at 11:00 p.m.
@DPA
Just one question, I don’t think Mike Fitzsimmons has ever practiced has he? I know he has a JD, but I don’t think he is a member of the bar, or am I mistaken? I know he does a talk show. Not that it matters, but I don’t know about notable attorney.
What if Judge Eitzen gets it? :)
DPA on December 14 at 11:16 p.m.
I don’t think Mr. Fitzsimmons has practice, but don’t know for sure.
Judge Eitzen won’t get this case. I understand a judge from another county will hear the case. But, she would toss it also. Recall petitions have been filed against a number of prosecutors around the state in the past. All have been dismissed because in each, the acts complained of by the prosecutor involved discretionary acts. Same as here. These discretionary acts are not the proper subject of a recall petition.
This is the reason the award of attorney’s fees is very real. Ms. Sullivan has been duped by people who have an agenda other than that stated in the petition. She got set up as a patsy.
We all know Mr. Wright won’t answer “yes” to the question of paying the legal bill if awarded. Hopefully Ms. Sullivan understands this and demands they also sign the petition before the court.
Shelala on December 14 at 11:31 p.m.
@Ron
I wondered about why your signature wasn’t on the petition as well as others who you state assisted in its preparation. What was the reasoning behind having the petition signed only by Sullivan especially in light of the fact you hold the credentials and she has a little less than favorable history and no credentials? Did Sullivan insist on this, why?
This is not a stab at you, just a willingness to understand.
Ron_the_Cop on December 14 at 11:32 p.m.
DPA,
Carefully read my post @10:37AM, “Within fifteen days after receiving the petition, the superior court shall have conducted a hearing on and shall have determined, without cost to any party, . . Both persons may appear with counsel.”
I think the legislative intent is to facilitate concerned citizens to bring such actions. As a defense to frivolous actions and needless public expense, the court serves as a check very early on in the process. I think a court would be hard pressed to award attorney fees unless the action was truly frivolous such as when did he last drive his car … . after his stops at the Goble Bar and the Goodtymes Bar and Grill. Of course this is rhetorically speaking.
This is a political action and not a legal one. This is a fundamental Constitutional right of the people to seek redress of their elected for failure to perform their sworn duties and responsibilities of their office. There is no standard of proof. The trier of fact is the voters and what will convince them. If 50% plus one vote in favor of recalling Tucker he’s out of office.
Tucker’s remark that if the charges are not approved he will advise the County to seek reimbursement for his legal expenses from Shannon Sullivan is a threat that sends a very chilling message to citizens that would otherwise seek to hold their elected accountable. If Tucker is so capable as an attorney why doesn’t he represent himself? Shannon is doing this pro se
Ron_the_Cop on December 14 at 11:54 p.m.
Shelala,
I’ve known that Shannon was passionate about doing this for a long time. When Tucker stood up Judge Hayes that was the last straw for Sheriff Bamonte and Shannon too. I brought them together with some other concerned citizens. We discussed this in depth and we would have gladly signed but this was Shannon’s call.
Shannon has a very good relationship with the media which is very important in getting the message to the citizens. We wanted this to be about Tucker and not us. Tucker was re-elected before the Zehm trial that exposed the overt cover-up by high level governmental officials and elected - Mayor Verner. Our only goal is to bring the vote to the people so they could decide whether Tucker should remain in office.
The statement of charges once summarized in a 200 word ballot summary will either fly or it won’t when the court reviews it. All I can say is that I believe it will be found legally sufficient as to the charges being appropriate/correct as to form and content, “The court shall not consider the truth of the charges, but only their sufficiency…” Once this occurs Shannon with our support needs to gather some 40K plus signatures and then it will be up to the voters to decide.
I hope this answers your question. Neither I or Sheriff Bamonte and the others wish to be a distraction. This is all about Tucker and not us. I don’t see this as being cowardly as Fitzsimmons and DPA have claimed.
ChiefsFan21 on December 15 at 12:06 a.m.
Obviously Mr Tucker thinks the public is really stupid.Because that was the biggest line of bs I’ve ever read RE: zehm case.
Truthbtold on December 15 at 6:47 a.m.
1) I met with Ron “the cop” and Tony Bomonte after I heard that they were going to file. The charges were put together by Tony, (an award winning author) at my request. Obviously he is better with words than I am. (I drafted charges and he put them into format.) Reiterate: The only charges on the petition were the ones I wanted and felt comfortable defending. There were other charges that were suggested and “I” declined to put them in. (I only met with Ron in person once in regards to the recall, but have bumped into since)
2) I did not want “Ron the Cop” to sign the petition. While he (most of the time) has the best intentions, I felt he would hinder the process.
3) I also want it noted that “I” put up the Recall Steve Tucker face book page up on Aug. 25. Long before I ever spoke with Ron or Tony. Mr. Bomonte has the same concerns that a lot of us do as citizens. But again, “I” only put the charges that I was conformable defending.
4) Ron the Cop does not speak for me; nor does or anyone else for that matter. The only person who responds to the comments or posts for the Recall Steve Tucker face book page or any other blogs/posts are my own words and opinions. I will not be held responsible for anyone’s comments/opinions other than my own.
5) Tony Bomonte is NO coward, and would have filed his own recall petition if I had not asked him to let me file first. (Not for the media attention: I knew I would take the “hits” in putting myself out there. But I felt it better to have tried and failed than to have not tried at all.
6) THE ONLY time attorneys fees have ever been award to the elected official was a case out of Pierce county where the same guy filed 5 times, and the last time he filed, he never bothered to even show up to court to defend his petition, to make matters worse, he actually filed one petition 2 weeks before the respondent was even elected. Here is the link: Towards the bottom of the article on the left hand side there are links to the entire process. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/11/17/1427836/judge-tosses-frivolous-bid-to.html
7) The city did not pay for Jim West attorney’s fees, and I feel that the Steve Tucker should not ask the County Commissioners to pay for his. After all he is a 13 year veteran elected Prosecutor, I am certain he can represent himself just fine.
brianrbreen on December 15 at 8:13 a.m.
@DPA
I was kidding about Judge Eitzen. This recall thing could be a good thing for the office. I like Steve but I just think he has become far too complacent.
I did find that old story that caused me concern. You might remember it.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/aug/03/consultant-file-charges-then-worry-about-follow-/
@ShannonSullivan
I salute your community involvement and your fervor. I don’t think you are going to make it as far as the recall is concerned, nor do I think you will be on the hook for attorney fees. At the very least this should be a wake-up call to Steve Tucker and maybe make him start being involved a little more.
This kind of reminds me of the mid to late 70s in Pierce County. Feds do a corruption case, Sheriff is indicted and convicted, the Prosecutor is implicated and someone tries to recall the prosecutor. If I remember correctly one of the big issues back then was that the Prosecutor…don’t remember his name… was a golfing buddy of the guy that was the top target in the RICO case. Let’s hope we never get to the point they have over the years on the west coast.
Not that there is any correlation between any “corruption” in that case and this one, but that stupid game of golf has gotten more people in trouble. Why do politicians continue to play the dang game?
Ron_the_Cop on December 15 at 8:35 a.m.
@Brian,
Something’s wrong with your link - good article. Try this one:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/aug/03/consultant-file-charges-then-worry-about-follow-/
If this doesn’t work because of the line feed try this tiny url:
http://tinyurl.com/8x22he5
brianrbreen on December 15 at 8:43 a.m.
Thanks, Your first one doesn’t work either but the second one does.
Shelala on December 15 at 12:55 p.m.
@Shannon
I dunno. I applaud your activism and agree with Brian. I am a little appalled that Tucker’s response to the recall attempt included a thinly veiled “suggestion” that any recall challenge or threat to remove him from elected office could result in back breaking legal fees. He is an elected official and IMO it was an inappropriate and telling response Unfortunately, I think the recall petition IMO is flawed and I have reservations about Sullivan’s insistence that she be the leader of this effort. Something just doesn’t smell right.Not a Tucker fan before, but even less after reading his response.
D Statler on December 16 at 7:45 a.m.
I will be happy at a chance for another vote on the issue. I too think that the recall might fail. I do however want to remind everyone involved that Tucker’s election is coming one way or the other. His ineffective leadership has cost us dearly in frivolous charges filed by unsupervised actions of his deputies. The most powerful office in the country needs to be held to the highest standards. We have been severely shortchanged and our legal justice system is paying the price now. Even a janitor can figure this one out. :^(
??Riddler?? on December 16 at 1:39 p.m.
?? D Statler ??
?? ” The most powerful office in the country (sic)” ??