|
Thursday, March 15, 2007 By JOHN BRANTON, Columbian Staff Writer More than seven months after his arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, Vancouver police Officer Clarence �Andrew� Young has received a letter of reprimand. The letter may bring to a close the strange story of an off-duty police officer who was arrested on suspicion of DUI but never charged with the crime. And who refused to perform field sobriety tests or alcohol breath tests when he was arrested last August but never lost his driver�s license. In the reprimand dated March 9, Nannette Kistler, the department�s acting assistant police chief, said she considered several factors, including that the highly publicized incident was the first such black mark on Young�s career. �I considered the impact your conduct had on public perception and the reputation of the members of the Vancouver Police Department,� Kistler wrote. She added: �Taking the totality of the circumstances surrounding this incident into account, you placed yourself in the position of making your private life public, thereby, bringing discredit on yourself and other members of the Vancouver Police Department.� �In addition,� she wrote, �I must inform you that should there be future occurrences of this nature, disciplinary action, up to and including termination may result.� Kistler�s action came after a lengthy and detailed internal investigation by the department�s Professional Standards Unit. Kistler said Young violated the department�s policy on general conduct that says: �No member of this department shall act or behave privately or officially in any such manner as to bring discredit upon him/herself or the department.� Young has until the end of the month to appeal. He hasn�t responded to a reporter�s invitations to comment on the case, including one made Thursday. The Columbian obtained a copy of the investigation and findings after filing a written request based on state public records laws. The documents make one important issue clear: Two Clark County Sheriff�s Office volunteer reserve deputies pulled Young over for alleged speeding, and one smelled alcohol on Young. The reserves, unsure what to do when they learned Young was a police officer, wanted to release him with a verbal warning and let Young�s supervisors handle the matter �internally.� But high-level officers in both departments insisted that Young be processed as a possible intoxicated driver. VPD Sgt. Joe Graaff said in statements that, after he was called to the scene, he told sheriff�s officers he didn�t want to influence their decision one way or the other. The two reserve deputies, Patrick Kilby and Scott Fakler, said their radar unit indicated that Young was doing 61 mph in a 40 mph zone before they pulled him over on Northeast 162nd Avenue about 11:30 p.m. on Aug. 5. Kilby said in his report that he smelled alcohol from the truck and believed he was influenced by alcohol. �He was slow to talk, his eyes were red and watery, and his movements were very slow and deliberate.� Fakler said he smelled no alcohol and that �Young�s speech was clear.� Unsure what to do, Kilby said he asked for a sergeant to call him. He said sheriff�s Sgt. Tony Barnes told him to �proceed as I would with anyone I suspected of driving while under the influence of alcohol.� High-ranking officers with both agencies quickly were made aware of the situation. Barnes said he later was asked to drive to the scene to handle the DUI investigation. Barnes said he detected �a very slight odor of intoxicants on his breath,� and that Young said he�d had �one social drink.� When Young refused to perform field-sobriety tests or give breath samples to determine his alcohol level, Barnes arrested him on suspicion of DUI. Young then was released. Another sheriff�s sergeant, Chuck Christensen, then drove Young home. Barnes sent his arrest report to the Clark County Prosecutor�s Office, asking officials to consider filing a DUI charge. Deputy prosecutors, after reviewing the case, declined to file the DUI charge. With no indication of Young�s alcohol level from any tests, and with some officers saying they didn�t smell alcohol, Deputy Prosecutor Mark Beam said there was insufficient evidence. Young was placed on paid administrative leave shortly after his arrest, during an initial investigation. He returned to duty two months later. Early in the case, there was a question of whether Young would lose his driver�s license since he refused to perform the sobriety tests. Young�s attorney, Jon McMullen, quickly filed a request for a hearing with the state Department of Licensing. Later, however, it was revealed that the sheriff�s records unit had failed to send Barnes� arrest report and reports by other officers to the licensing department, as required within 72 hours, officials said. Since the reports weren�t sent to the licensing department until much later, there was never any question of suspending Young�s license to drive, licensing officials said. The internal investigation also delved into why the reports weren�t sent. Asked to find out why, records supervisor Carolyn Demme said one records employee told her she didn�t send it on Aug. 9 because �it was not complete, and our directions from DOL are to send only complete reports.� Another records employee, a trainee, told Demme that she was �not aware in August about having to send anything to Olympia.� John Branton covers crime and law enforcement for The Columbian. He can be reached at 360-759-8012 or [email protected]. |
|
|
| Vancouver Police Officer a disgrace |
|
| Vancouver police officer Clarence �Andrew� Young was arrested for DUI and stopped for speeding and never prosecuted. Not only was he not prosecuted but was given a 2 month paid vacation (2 months paid administrative leave) which means he was paid for not working for committing a crime. I find this so hard to believe that this could happen today. Below is an article written in the Columbian new paper March 18th 2007 (please make sure and read it). He never lost his license, never got a speeding ticket and never even had to go to court. Just 2 months off work with pay.
How can we have any trust in our police officers if this is allowed to stand? How can this officer ever testify in court as a credible witness? This is what you would expect from the police in the 1920�s when corruption was part of the job. Is that what we are going back to? No citizen today would gat this kind of treatment and yet our tax dollars paid this crook for 2 months for his breaking the law. I can not see how any jury could take anything Young says as valid. You would almost have to find anyone he arrests or gives a citation to not guilty. The Vancouver police feel that a letter in his file is enough when any other tax payer would have at the very least got a ticket, probably lost their license and maybe even gone to jail. What if he had killed someone? Maybe 4 months off with pay. What a sweet deal. If you find this as sickening as me please send your letters to the Columbian [email protected] and the Oregonian [email protected] . |