Spokane7
65°
July 15, 2011 in News, City
Fired detective files $10 million claim
Fired Spokane police Detective Jeff Harvey and his attorney filed a $10 million claim against the city today, arguing that police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick terminated him because he spoke out against the chief’s policies as the vice president of the Spokane Police Guild.
“Chief Kirkpatrick has for some time expressed her retaliatory desire/intent to terminate Detective Harvey’s 24-year law enforcement career due to his ongoing vocal opposition to her disparate and unlawful treatment of union members,” Harvey’s attorney, Bob Dunn, wrote in the tort claim.
City officials announced this week that Harvey had been terminated as a result of criminal charges following a confrontation with a state Fish and Wildlife officer and what his termination letter called “a troubled work history.”
The city placed Harvey on paid leave in February following a Jan. 22 incident in which Fish and Wildlife Officer Dave Spurbeck said he had to physically move Harvey away from his vehicle as Harvey tried to prevent Spurbeck from questioning youths regarding a report of shooting after hours.
In the tort claim, Dunn attacked the investigation that resulted in the Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office charging Harvey with a gross misdemeanor as “the negligent investigation of spurious and contrived off-duty charges against him … and the subsequent improper, highly prejudicial, and biased investigation and hearing conducted without due process by Chief Anne Kirkpatrick, as well as her numerous violations of City and Police Policy and Procedure.”
Harvey’s criminal case is due to go to trial in Spokane County District Court on Aug. 22.
Neither Harvey nor Kirkpatrick could immediately be reached for comment today.
In his 10-page termination letter, which was signed by Kirkpatrick and City Administrator Ted Danek and hand-delivered to Harvey’s home Wednesday, city officials documented other discipline and negative evaluations during Harvey’s years in the department.
In 1987, Harvey was suspended for 20 days without pay for “excessive use of force and demeanor” after breaking a man’s arm. Harvey was suspended that same year for one day for harassment in connection to complaints made by two other citizens, according to a Spokesman-Review article.
He was given an oral reprimand in 1989 after eight employees at the Spokane County Juvenile Detention Facility complained that Harvey and two other officers used excessive force against a 17-year-old boy.
In 1991, the city suspended him for 40 hours for abusing sick leave. In 1993, he was suspended for five days for making false allegations about a supervisor. Since then, the letter outlines mostly negative comments from supervisors in reviews.
Harvey was a vice president of the guild when the group held a vote of no-confidence in the chief last year. A majority of voters, though not of guild members, agreed to give Kirkpatrick and Assistant Chief Jim Nicks the no-confidence label.
Mayor Mary Verner, earlier this week, said Harvey’s termination is a result of his actions as an employee, not as a union member.
“When we take personnel decisions, we take them based on the employee’s behavior in the workplace,” she said.
The termination letter indicates that some leaders in the department felt Harvey was cut more slack because he was in union leadership.
“Often times Jeff discusses issues in the department in a manner that is afforded a union representative that would be frowned upon if it were any other detective,” Torok wrote in 2009.
“An example is his severe criticism of the administration, a policy, certain members of senior staff, etc.”
Recent stories by Thomas Clouse
Recent stories in News
1992 murder trial begins against sex offender May 30, 2012
- Supermajority for taxes unconstitutional, judge rules May 30, 2012 6
- Man dies following early Saturday car crash May 30, 2012 12
- Sex trafficking suspects released as probe continues May 29, 2012 7
- Center’s activities provide glimpse into network of advocacy groups May 28, 2012 4
lowtechmaster on July 15 at 4:11 p.m.
Not a surprise. Bet he’ll settle for only ripping off a few hundred K from the taxpayers (who will also pay his very generous pension and health package). The Spokane Police Department seems very much out of control and has become very dangerous to citizens, both physically and financially. They seem to believe they can do whatever they want, and are accountable to no one!!
lowtechmaster on July 15 at 4:12 p.m.
Why did he not go to an arbitrator…as his union did to block giving the Ombudsman a touch of real authority?
kneedrager on July 15 at 4:19 p.m.
it’s a no win situation. Even if they want to get rid of some “bad apples” they’ll turn around and hit them (us) in the pocket book. Any other job, reading what’s above, he would’ve been gone LONG ago. Instead, management has to cover their ass and keep sub standard employees around, for fear of being sued. Case in point.
MrNatural on July 15 at 4:55 p.m.
yer right…no surprise here…I knew it the moment I read the morning paper…no sirreee…anytime you poke a rat on acid expect to git bit…
jddavis on July 15 at 5:21 p.m.
So the Guild wants to discount Wildlife Officer Spurbeck’s judgement and professionalism because one of their own can’t follow the law, and when called on it, thinks he can break the law again because he is above rules?
Hopefully the trial on August 22nd will reveal the truth and justice will be served. Then, we will see about this civil tort Mr. Harvey.
jessa26 on July 15 at 5:31 p.m.
Sounds like the chief just finally got rid of a guy who just didn’t do a good job. If this were any other type of job, and he hadn’t been covering his rear-end with the union, he would have been fired long ago. Let him spend thousands on court costs, just to bite back! Too bad he probably won’t get a cent!
toliveanddieinla on July 15 at 5:51 p.m.
yea where is spokane gonna come up with 10 million dollars good luck getting your money from broke spokane ,your not above the law so please dont let him back on the spokane police force he needs to be removed from law enforcment completely from all law enforcement in united states p.s. who is next lets clean up spokane police force
misjustice on July 15 at 5:58 p.m.
Geez, nothing like ripping off the citizens on yer way out the door…what an a$$hat!
brianrbreen on July 15 at 6:57 p.m.
The termination of Mr. Harvey was premature, and any individual knowledgeable with respect to handling internal investigations of public officials alleged to have committed criminal conduct would have known that in order to be in best position to justify a termination or make a decision regarding any subsequent disciplinary action it is of primary importance that the criminal case is heard and a verdict rendered prior to any administrative action taken. There are a number of significant reasons why this is important including the fact that witness testimony is under oath and a matter of record. It also allows independent examination of the witnesses by both the prosecution and the attorneys representing the public official. The recorded testimony of witnesses at a criminal trial is readily available post trial for administrative investigations and in most cases will provide further leads for an administrative investigation, as well as help to dispel any questions regarding a particular bias. It is quite often even better from an administrative perspective if the public employee takes the stand in his/her defense and makes statements not subject to Garrity.
A snap shot of Mr. Harvey’s criminal defense was projected during his Loudermill Hearing and the criminal trial will revolve around who is telling the truth, the wild life agent or Mr. Harvey. The issue of the interrogation of Mr. Harvey’s children will also become and issue at trial, and although I do not know the age of the children involved, I do know that depending upon the age of the children Mr. Harvey does have the right to object strenuously (without obstructing the investigation) to the children being interrogated or interviewed by a law enforcement officer.
Unless Mr. Harvey takes the witness stand in his own defense, and offers testimony as to his own veracity I don’t see how the jury will hear the litanies of improper and illegal conduct he apparently has admitted to having perpetrated.
An acquittal of Mr. Harvey in this case is not beyond the realm of possibility. Should he be acquitted the City of Spokane and the Police Department will be in the same position they were in the Mehring case and others cases, paying more for the costs of defending the civil action then it would have cost for the officer to remain on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of a proper internal investigation. It is quite obvious that those representing Mr. Harvey anticipated what the City and the Police Department would do, and had everything well prepared.
Brian R.Breen
Kivaari on July 15 at 7:27 p.m.
Breen, If the children were old enough to be hunting, and were indeed hunting, then they had an obligation to speak with a game officer. He does have a right to see their hunting permits.
Harvey did not have a right to stop that normal and legal action of the game officer. He being a police officer, and an ex officio game officer himself, knows that.
It shows very poor form by him to respond as he did. Had he and his children not been acting illegally, then why would he resist a perfectly normal and legal contact by a game officer?
Did the city acted too quickly? Let’s see January 22 to July 13, with many lawyers and HR-types involved, it seems like they put a great deal of thought into this firing.
Perhaps Harvey built his own gallows through a continuous string of poor performance reviews and serious violations of conduct. Perhaps being a loud mouth at inappropriate times caught up to him. Free speech has its limits, and his record showed he had not learned that lesson under any chief.
PlanB on July 15 at 8:16 p.m.
There is something so seriously wrong about being able to screw citizens with lawsuits when Harvey is so clearly incompetent and a danger to everyone around him. This is the EXACT crapola pulled by union thugs that makes people hate them so much, but we tend to take out our anger on people that are not big enough a-holes to pull such a ridiculous stunt, such as health care workers making almost minimum wage.
Kivaari on July 15 at 8:22 p.m.
Plan B, If a health care worker is making ppor money, they have a choice to get a better job. Nothing forces them to work for low wages.
PlanB on July 15 at 8:43 p.m.
Kiv,
1. There are not enough good paying jobs to go around, and some people choose work that benefits others, etc…
2. But that really wasn’t my point: the point is unions that don’t have much clout and represent employees that don’t make top wages isn’t the problem, yet they are targets of cost cutters. Ever hear of a $10/hour home care worker suing for $10M? Maybe, but with the SPD its standard operating procedure.
Kivaari on July 15 at 9:07 p.m.
Plan B, Jobs with good pay need people that will work hard enough to get them. Low-end jobs can attract both the good employee (my wife, no union, but she earned 1.5 times more then the average CNA) and those that didn’t work hard enough to get a better job.
There is tough competition for jobs like police and fire service. Many people cannot pass the basic entrance exams or get into the academy. It does require some smarts, and many don’t have what it takes.
Most low-wage health care jobs frankly are not worth fighting over. Most employees are, “at-will employees”, with no union or a weak union that is more worried about getting the dues money then actually working for the employee.
Work for a UFCW local and you will find it is there for the union, not the employee.
Every employee is subject to cost cutting. Why is it that when officers are not replaced and property crimes goes under investigated it is a police problem, when it is actually a budget problem.
foxfour2 on July 15 at 9:26 p.m.
Brian Breen, you write like maybe you are an attorney who represents members of the Police Guild and/or this poor hapless Detective who has never done anything wrong in his whole career on the police force and is getting the shaft. Or is that you write like you are versed somewhat in law and you just believe he has done nothing wrong. Well by reading his work history it does seem as though he is not a saint, nor was he ever selected as the most outstanding police officer of the year in his whole career. If you, Det.. Harvey and the Police Guild think he has been wrongly terminated, rather than suing the City Of Spokane, I would suggest that they turn this matter over to the Police Ombudsman for his unbiased findings. Oh! that’s right, the Police Guild doesn’t want to give the Ombudsman any authority to investigate anything that might prove to be judgmental and embarrassing to the SPD! If Det. Harvey worked in the outside world I’m sure he would have been fired long ago. If it had been you or I interfering with the Fish & Wildlife Officer I believe we might have been arrested right there and taken to jail, or we would have had our day in court much sooner. Det. Harvey seems to speak very loudly for the type of leadership of the Police Guild, who sometimes think they are above themselves (the law). If Det. Harvey’s actions represent the leadership of the Police Guild (the Good Ole Boy’s Club) then we as citizens of this city are in trouble. I also believe as a condition of his firing he should have to pay back half of his salary from the time he was put on paid administrative leave. How many businesses are going to tolerate that kind of conduct, and then pay them their full salary for 6 months while they investigate? The benefits of belonging to a Union. Not all Unions would do that, most would probably show that person the door, and tell them not to let it hit them on the backside on their way out. That is what Det. Harvey deserves! This is another fine example of corruption in the Police Guild. If Det. Harvey believes he is a Knight in Shining Armor, then I would like to see what he believes a reprobate is.
D Statler on July 15 at 9:47 p.m.
You think this guy is the only Spokane Detective on the take? He is just the tip of an out of control iceberg. Getting him outta the department and with any luck, out of the guild will be a good step. Good job Mrs. Kirkpatrick ! Now keep weeding out the rest of the bad apples. Your public might regain faith and trust. :^)
brianrbreen on July 16 at 9:28 a.m.
@foxfor2
I am not an attorney, nor do I represent the Police Guild in any way. I am only expressing my opinion that the Police Department and the City of Spokane should have waited until the conclusion of the criminal trial prior to termination. Because the criminal case may end up in a swearing contest there is always a chance of an acquittal which would place the City in the position of having to defend a termination made prior to the conclusion of the criminal case, and would provide Mr. Harvey with added ammunition of bias in the civil claim. An acquittal would not preclude terminating Mr. Harvey, but would require significant care in the investigation of every aspect of the criminal trial and all of the evidence presented which then could be used during the administrative investigative process. If he were to take the stand any statements he made on the record could be used in the administrative investigation. The termination letter states; “In the ARP report it is stated “the witness statements to this incident appear rehearsed”. I am guessing that means the ARP panel believed Mr. Harvey rehearsed with his children their statements to administrative investigators. I hope the ARP can clearly document the reasons for drawing this conclusion and in my opinion this particular statement should not have been in the termination letter as it adds fuel to the bias fire unless the ARP can clearly demonstrate or provide some type of proof on which they based their reasoning. Had the City waited the statements of the children made on the witness stand under cross examination could have yielded clear evidence that their statements were rehearsed and perhaps more. A conviction by a jury of course makes things much easier as far as termination is concerned and as Mr. Harvey would have had his day in court prior to his termination the issue of bias would be a harder sell in a civil claim. If one were to look back at the problems the Police Department has had when an officer has been terminated prior to the criminal case you might understand my position.
I am not defending Mr. Harvey or any of his actions. In my opinion which I expressed back then he should have been terminated in 1987 when the criminal investigation was conducted and charges of Felony Assault were requested of the Spokane County Prosecutor. Although the Prosecutor’s Office would not charge Mr. Harvey in that case because of a reluctant victim Mr. Harvey did admit during the administrative investigation to having committed felony assault (“got to [you]”) on an individual he was trying to take into custody.
I am only expressing my opinion that based upon the circumstances, the history, and how some members of the Spokane Police Department view Mr. Harvey as a “legend” , as well as to mitigate a claim of bias, it would have been far better to give him his day in court and then proceed with an objective, evidence gathering process perhaps bolstered by evidence obtained at trial.
lewis8457 on July 16 at 9:29 p.m.
This is Spokane he will:
A) Get his job back with back pay
B) Win
brianrbreen on July 16 at 10:11 p.m.
I understand your sarcasm, but you could be correct. Who knows what may come up in the criminal trial. Hypothetically, the defense could come up with some information that the Wild Life Officer was at one time transferred to another part of the state because of complaints regarding his aggressive demeanor. Or, again hypothetically, the Wild Life Officer entered into an agreement with a witness in a criminal case where in what the witness observed would not be reported to the prosecutor even though beneficial to the defense, and once the defense in that case became aware of this fact and notified the prosecutor all the charges were dismissed. Who knows what the defense in the Harvey criminal case might come up with during their investigation or what a jury might believe. That is why it would have been better in my opinion to hold off making a termination decision until after the criminal trial. The termination letter suggests that part of the termination decision is based on the credibility of the Wild Life Officer rather then Mr. Harvey or the other witnesses. Because it appears the trial will be a swearing contest, if steps were not taken to ensure the Wild Life Officers has nothing in his background that could call into question his credibility and the defense comes up with something that was overlooked in the administrative investigation it would sure add more fuel to the bias claim, and in the end cost you and me more money. Sometimes it is better and cost effective to hold off the decision making process until all the facts come to light.