Jeff Parks - Deposition Transcript (Federal)

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v.
Whatcom County
Page 1
UNITED STATES OF DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE --------------------------------------------------------------PAUL MURPHY, together with his marital community, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) vs. ) NO. 2:13-CV-00727 ) WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON, a ) government entity; WHATCOM COUNTY ) SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; WILLIAM J. ) ELFO, together with his marital ) community, ) Defendants. ) --------------------------------------------------------------DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION OF JEFF PARKS --------------------------------------------------------------1:20PM - 2:30PM March 10TH, 2014 Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, Washington 98225 Reported by Kristen M. Uhlig Certified Court Reporter, CCR, CSR Washington CCR #1934
BMA Court Reporters 425-252-7277 3206 Wetmore, Suite 12, Everett, WA 98201
Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County
Page 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A P P E A R A N C E S
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: Robert Butler & Emily Beschen Law Offices of Robert Butler 103 East Holly Street Suite 512 Bellingham, Washington 98225 360.734.3448 FOR THE DEFENDANTS WHATCOM COUNTY & SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT & ELFO Dale Kamerrer Law Lyman Daniel Kamerrer Bogdanovich 2674 RW Johnson Blvd SW Tumwater, Washington 98512 360.754.3480 FOR WHATCOM COUNTY: Elizabeth Gallery Whatcom County Prosecutor's Office 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, Washington 98225 ALSO PRESENT: William Elfo Tara Adrian-Stavik
Page 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE EXAMINATION: I N D E X PAGE
BY MR. BUTLER................................................4 BY MR. KAMERRER.............................................41 BY MR. BUTLER...............................................42
6....Whatcom County Sheriff's 8/14/08 Memo...................23 7....Whatcom County Sheriff's 5/12/11 Memo...................26 8....E-mail, November 9, 2011 - From J. Parks to S. Cooley...28 9....E-mail, April 17, 2012 - From S. Cooley to J. Parks.....29 10...E-mail, April 20, 2012 - From J. Parks..................30 11...Advice of Administrative Investigation, 3/13/2012.......31
Page 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
JEFFREY PARKS, having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BUTLER: Q Good afternoon, would you please state your name and spell it for the record? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A It's Jeffrey Parks, P-A-R-K-S. Where are you employed? Whatcom County Sheriff's Office. How long have you been so employed? Thirty-one years. When you started 31 years ago, what was your rank? Deputy. Have you been promoted in rank in your 31 years? I have. And can you briefly give me your promotion schedule? From June of 1982 until -- I'm trying to -- I don't remember the month off the top of my head -- 1989 was a deputy sheriff, and then promoted in 1989 to sergeant. And from 1989 to 1995, I believe, probably around June of '95, served as a sergeant and then promoted to lieutenant. And from '95 until 2001, served as a lieutenant. And in 2001,
Page 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
promoted to chief deputy. In 2001 until 2009, served as a chief deputy at which point I was promoted to undersheriff, and from '09 until the present, that's my title. Q Okay. And briefly describe the job duties of the chief. What
does -- when you worked 2001 to 2009, what were your functions? A Actually, I held a chief's position in both the -- I was a chief civil deputy, which has its own unique job assignment and requirements. And then transferred from there to the chief
criminal deputy, which has its own unique requirements as well. Basically, each chief's position oversees what we now call a bureau. Q Okay. Were you chief of both ever at the same time or were you
chief of civil separate and unique from chief of criminal? A Q The later. Which did you do first, if you could break up your years of '01 to '09, between civil and criminal? A The chief civil deputy was my initial assignment in, again, I believe that it was 2001. And that basically oversees the So most of
civil division and then the records and ID section. the support services for the sheriff's office.
The chief civil deputy ensures all of the process that comes into our office, whether it is the court orders or attorney papers, summons and complaints, that those are out for service. We seize or bring property back pursuant to court
Page 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
orders.
So that was in overseeing the civil bureau and the
records bureau. So in transferring over to the chief criminal deputy, that's oversees -- basically oversees our investigations, our criminal investigations. Q A When did you make that change? That would have been in -- if I misspoke, I'm thinking back on the dates now. In two-thousand and -- I believe that it was in So
2001 that I was moved over to the chief criminal deputy.
from '95 to -- I'm missing a year in there thinking about it without having it in front of me. Q A Let me pair it back -Going back to chief civil deputy, that one I'm a little bit -when I first got promoted into that, I'm a little bit -- I would have to go back and look at my personnel record. Q A Q Okay. Right. From '89 to '95, you were a sergeant. were a lieutenant. From '95 to '01, you Here's what I have. From '82 to '89, you were a deputy.
From '01 to '09, you were undersheriff -- I
mean, you were chief, and that was what I was asking you to break out was the '01 to '09 between criminal and civil. A Right. Actually, I've got the dates just a little bit wrong in
there because some of those -- one of those was based on a retirement. Q Okay.
Page 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
So I'm trying to remember when the one person left, so I'm a little fuzzy on the dates. But when I got promoted from
lieutenant to chief, it was -Q A Civil? Yeah. The chief civil deputy. I'm sorry. I'm trying to think
of the exact year. Q A Don't worry about it. In 2002, I know that I was the -- well, I came -- I was -- I would have to go look at those exact year break downs. sorry. I'm
Just right in there, there's just the chief civil -- I
was probably in there a year or two. Q A Okay. I was the chief criminal deputy much longer than the chief civil deputy, so I can clarify that by looking at the records. Q No. I was just trying to get the breakdown of the job duties. The role of undersheriff, what was the job function of undersheriff -A Q A The undersheriff --- your next promotion? Right. The undersheriff then supervises the bureau chiefs. So
we basically have bureau chiefs over the jail as well, over civil and support, over law enforcement and investigations and then also our division of emergency management, which serves on par as somewhat similar to a regular bureau chief. he has a much smaller span of control. Although,
He has fewer employees
Page 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A A Q A Q Q A Q Q A Q A Q A Q A over there. But all of those divisions and bureaus report to
me and then I report to the sheriff. You became that in '09? In November of 2009. The predecessor to that was Carey James? That's right. All right. I apologize for the confusion there. No. It's --
A couple of years in there, I'm not right off the top of my head, certain on. So in your capacity as undersheriff, what's your contact with the rank and file, the deputies? It's kind of incidental. I try to -- if I see them, you know, But it's not a
try to interact and see how things are going. daily supervisory role of the line staff.
And in your role as the undersheriff, would it be fair to say that it's more of an office than it is an active investigative function? Right. Okay. And grants, things like that. In your capacity as chief, how engaged is the chief with what we would have referred to as rank and file? More the lieutenants and sergeants. A lot of what I do relates to the budget.
Page 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Q A Q A Q A Q Q Q A Okay. But more so -- there would be more contact with the rank and file, but more so with managers and supervisors. Okay. Credibility within the department is what I would like I'm asking for your opinion, not What does
to talk to you about now.
speaking on behalf of the agency, but Jeff Parks.
Jeff Parks think about the credibility of -- I'm going to name some of the individuals in the department. What I'm referring to with that is your opinion of their candor, their truthfulness in their performance of their job. Okay? Mm-hm. What's your opinion of Flynn? MR. KAMERRER: I'm going to insert an objection that Nevertheless, in a
it's irrelevant and calls for speculation. deposition, you can answer the question. (By Mr. Butler) Larry Flynn? Yeah. I believe that he's credible. Okay. Right.
Any incidents, issues that you've had experience with
him where you have doubted his truthfulness? No. How about Nyhus? I apologize up front for not giving rank and
first name, because I would probably mess those up.
Page 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q
Okay. So if there's a person's name that you don't recognize, I'll dig it out, but for notes purposes, I'm just going with last names. Nyhus, your opinion of his credibility?
A Q
Jason Nyhus? Yes. MR. KAMERRER: THE WITNESS: Same objection. Go ahead.
My opinion is that Jason has some
challenges with his communication style that sometimes can come off not necessarily as being not a credible -- if you say in our official capacity, obviously, that relates to being a credible witness or writing accurate reports. But at times, in my opinion, there are some communication issues with understanding exactly what Jason is trying to get to at times. But I certainly wouldn't say that
he is not a credible witness in terms of his capacity as a deputy sheriff. Q (By Mr. Butler) So if he reported something to you, you would
believe what he was reporting to you? A I would evaluate it to make sure that it's something that he knew firsthand. Q A Q Okay. If it were firsthand, you wouldn't doubt his word?
Not unless I had a reason to. Okay. Have you ever had reason to doubt his word when you
Page 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Q A Q A Q A A checked? Again, I would refer to his -- his communication style. Sometimes you have to nail him down to find out if, in fact, he's sure or has firsthand knowledge about what he's talking about. If he tells me that he actually saw something, I wouldn't have a reason to not take that on face value and believe that he believes what he's telling. Okay. How about Jeremy Freeman?
Again, in his official capacity, I don't have any firsthand knowledge to say that he's not credible. At times, there are
some communication issues that, again, I have an opinion about his communication style. difficulty. Sometimes there's been some
But I don't have any reason to believe that he
would not be a credible witness. Taddonio? I don't have any issues with his -- from what I know about his performance and in his official capacity, I don't have any issues. VanderVeen? I would think the same as far as his official capacity as a witness and a deputy. his credibility. Have you ever had issue with his credibility in the work -have you ever questioned his credibility in the workplace? I don't have any particular issues with
Page 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Not directly.
I know that we had some issues with a court case
where that became an issue, but I don't have any direct knowledge one way or another. Q A Q Did you do any investigation into it? I did not personally. Did you review any investigations into it to make a determination with regard to his credibility? A I believe that I had some discussions with our counsel as to what they were finding. Q A Q A Q Which counsel was that? Randy Watts. Anybody else? I may have, but I don't recall. So did you think that the jury got it wrong then with regard to Freeman and VanderVeen? A I don't have an opinion either way with the jury. there. Q Okay. I don't even know what they heard. Internally in the department, was that the discussion I wasn't
that the jury got it wrong? A It was an issue due to the findings. I mean the court case,
obviously, created some issues within the agency. Q A Q A Roff? I have no issues with his credibility at all. Harris? Again, with Steve Harris, it would be more my opinion on his
Page 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
communication style and what he chooses to do with information, but nothing -- I've had dealings with Steve Roff on two different levels. Q A Steve Harris? I'm sorry. president. Steve Harris. He was obviously the guild One, he was obviously --
And so some of those discussions, you know, occur
with him from a labor relations standpoint or guild standpoint. So sometimes, those would have to be taken with a grain of salt. As far as his official capacity, reporting as a deputy sheriff, there's nothing that I can point to that would say that he was not credible. Q A Q A Q A Steve Cooley? I have no issues with his credibility. Have you ever had reason to wonder or question? His credibility? Yes. No. MR. KAMERRER: THE WITNESS: Q (By Mr. Butler) Objection, vague. No.
How about in his personal life? Objection.
MR. KAMERRER: Q (By Mr. Butler)
As opposed to work? Calls for speculation as to relevance. No. We don't socialize. I don't -- I
MR. KAMERRER: THE WITNESS:
Page 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q Q Q A Q really don't know much about his personal life. MR. KAMERRER: record -THE WITNESS: MR. KAMERRER: THE WITNESS: MR. KAMERRER: THE WITNESS: (By Mr. Butler) Sorry. -- before you start talking. Sorry. Sorry. Let me get my objection on the
If not, she'll hit you on the hand. I know.
Mede, with regard to his credibility?
I have no issues with his credibility. Have you ever had reason to wonder? MR. KAMERRER: speculation. (By Mr. Butler) his credibility? MR. KAMERRER: THE WITNESS: (By Mr. Butler) Same objection. I don't know what you mean by wonder. Has his Have you ever had questions to wonder about Objection. Vague, calls for
Has his credibility been challenged?
credibility been raised to you in the official capacity as he has a credibility issue -Yes. -- and you have had to think about that? Right. I had to review an incident where there was differing
views or differing recollections on what happened in an incident.
Page 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q A
Mm-hm. But nothing came forward to me that would give me reason to believe that he was not truthful or credible.
Did you ever participate in any meetings or discussions where there was conversation about whether or not Mede should receive a Brady letter?
Right.
There was a review.
There was a preliminary inquiry
that was reported that I reviewed and issued a report on that situation. And that was central to -- that issue was central We interviewed a number of -- I did
to what we were reviewing.
not, but the chief deputy at the time interviewed a number of deputies regarding that. Q Okay. Since two-thousand and roughly one or two when you
became the chief criminal deputy, and then through your undersheriff years, how many deputies have been questioned with regards to a Brady issue? to Mede. Just as you referenced with regard
How many of those situations have come up in your
experience in the last 12 years? MR. KAMERRER: THE WITNESS: Q A (By Mr. Butler) Yeah. Objection, vague. In the last 12 years?
So back to specifically regarding Brady or just specifically regarding just credibility?
Let's go both.
Let's go with credibility first and then we'll
narrow it to Brady.
Page 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
There have been a few.
I don't know if I can enumerate them,
but there's been a few instances of either alleged misconduct or concerns that we have looked into that would center around credibility. Q Okay. Narrowing that to where you've been a part of a Brady
discussion as to whether or not the deputy or a member of the sheriff's department should be Brady'ed, can you identify those? We know Murphy got one. We know that Mede was
investigated for one. A
Anybody else?
Specifically for Brady -- there might have been one or two, but I just can't come up with a specific name.
Q A
Are you aware of anybody receiving a Brady letter? No. Well, I -- Mr. Murphy obviously has and that's -- that's
the first one that I was specifically involved in that I recall. Q Can you describe for me the internal process with regards to Brady policy-wise from your experience in the sheriff's department for the last 31 years? A Our practice has been to include that information, whether it be the sole source of the complaint or the concern or if it's intwined with the complaint or the concern into the administrative investigation. It is evaluated up, presented up to the sheriff, and from our department or office, it is then evaluated on whether that -- we feel that it meets criteria or we get legal review
Page 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
if that meets the criteria where that should be presented to the prosecutor. Q Do you know who makes the decision as to whether it gets reviewed by the prosecutor? A Q A Q Whether it goes outside of our office? Yes. That would be the sheriff. So from what you understand the policy of the sheriff's department with regards to Brady, the gatekeeper, if you will, of that information is the sheriff as to whether it gets reviewed by the prosecutor's office. understood? A For it to be referred outside of our agency, yes. Because he Is that what I
is the person who reviews our administrative investigations, our complaints, and ensures that they're complete and is a part of that process. Then, of course, it would be referred out for
the prosecuting attorney's office. Q A And as undersheriff, are you included in that process? I am. I basically oversee that whole process and give the If there's
final product -- deliver that to the sheriff.
anything else he needs or anything else that comes up in the investigation, then I'm tasked with seeing to it that it's taken care of. Q Since 2009 other than Murphy, have you given any investigations to the sheriff to determine whether or not to seek outside
Page 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
counsel or to give it to the sheriff or prosecutor? A Q A A number. A number of them, yes.
Can you give me an example of one? Of a -- you're speaking of an administrative investigation or what a lot of folks call an internal investigation?
Right.
Where there's a Brady issue involved that you have
given to the sheriff. A Q A Probably one of the more recent ones would be Deputy Lann. How long ago was that? It's been an ongoing series since going back for sure -- I would have to check some of the dates, but 2009 or 2010. There
were a number of complaints there where we had stories that didn't quite match up. Of course, there was -- there can be a
lot of different explanations for that at times. So there were a couple of instances there where we were looking very carefully to make sure that we were getting a straight story and that we were getting truthful interviews. Q A Okay. Anybody else?
One of the more recent ones involves a support employee, where that employee resigned during the pendency of the investigation. But we had reason to believe that that employee
was not being truthful in reporting activity to their supervisor. Q A Who was that? Nicole Larsen.
Page 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q A
How long ago was that? Just within the last few months. 1998, I believe. There was another one around We had
It was a lieutenant at the time.
another employee resign in lieu of what looked like the investigation was not complete. However, in overseeing that
investigation, it was my opinion that she was not being truthful in relationship to some equipment that was damaged on duty. Q Is there a policy that you're aware of that the sheriff's department follows with regards to or training or policy regarding Brady? matter or not? A Q Could you -- I lost you about halfway through the question. Sure. I'm wondering -- and it's compound, so let me give you In what qualifies as this should be a Brady
the compound and then I'll break it. What I'm looking for is if you're aware of any policy in the department or any training that the department utilizes in the area of Brady. So as to what should be a Brady issue and
what doesn't need to be a Brady issue with regards to a deputy. So let me go back now and say, are you aware of any policy that the sheriff's office maintains and is known as to what qualifies as a Brady issue? MR. KAMERRER: for speculation. I'm going to insert an objection, calls
It is a -- essentially a hypothetical Go ahead.
question and it's an inadequate hypothetical.
Page 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE WITNESS: Q (By Mr. Butler) hypothetical. A Q A
It's a --
Just to be clear, I'm not asking a Are you aware of any policy?
I'm asking:
We don't have a written specific policy on Brady. Okay. We have a practice. And the command staff that are involved in
investigations are sensitive, obviously, to inaccurate information or situations or scenarios that may revolve around credibility or bias or information that should be disclosed once we get it put together and reviewed. And, again, make the
determination and have it reviewed, if it's something that should be provided to the prosecutor, so that information can be appropriately handled by him. Q A Okay. As far as training, I believe that most of the command staff has received training. I know that I have attended several
trainings on the requirements of Brady, whether it be in-classroom training or webinars or written materials that we have provided. Q Can you give me an example of a training that you have received, that the source of the training that you have received was Brady? A Written materials from either Washington State, such as the Prosecutor's Association, I believe. Q Okay.
Page 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
There's materials -- I know that I'm fairly sure, I could be wrong -- but I'm thinking off the top of my head through the Criminal Justice Training. I know that it has come up in
internal investigations trainings that I have attended as long ago as the late 90s. I'm guessing on the dates, but I know our
other command staff members have attended training where that content has been provided. Q Okay. With regard to practice, if a deputy prosecutor were to
call and ask about the credibility of an officer, would it just go to Sheriff Elfo or would it go to you as the undersheriff? If the deputy prosecutor had a question about Brady? A They tend to call people directly, so I can't really speak as to who they would call. Q Okay. Have you ever received a call from a deputy prosecutor
regarding whether or not Brady would be appropriate for a deputy? A Q Their decision to consider them Brady? Yeah. Whether a letter should go out to defense counsel that
this officer has been looked at for credibility issues? A Not that I recall. I don't think that they've queried me back
for any reason to see if I thought that it should go forward, if that's what you're asking me. Q Are you -- that was that question. The next question is: Are
you aware of prosecutors calling or e-mailing the department, inquiring about the credibility of a given deputy?
Page 22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
No.
I can't think of -- I can't think of that coming in that
way from the prosecutor. Q A Q A You don't remember Hulbert inquiring about Mede? He didn't inquire of me. Were you aware that he inquired of the department? I don't know that. I don't know that for sure. I mean, his
name came up in the preliminary inquiry that we did, but I didn't handle anything from him directly that I recall. Q Do you recall -- and I apologize that I have drawn a blank on the name -- the evidence room person that was driven home because she was intoxicated on the job in the evidence room? A Q Yes. Connie Meyer. (Phonetic) Are you aware that -- if anybody was
Connie Meyer.
Thank you.
notified that the evidence room tech was intoxicated on the job? A I didn't handle that case. specifically. Q A Q A Were you undersheriff at that time? No. Were you chief criminal at that time? I believe so. I would have to go back and check to make sure, I don't know what was done on it
but it wasn't -- I wasn't involved in it, so I don't think that I would have been over that bureau. would have been involved. Q Okay. Had I been, I think that I
Page 23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(Marked Deposition Exhibit No. 6) Q (By Mr. Butler) Showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 6,
this appears to me to be a memo drafted by you to Sheriff Elfo and Undersheriff James in August of '08 regarding Deputy Murphy. A Q A Q Mm-hm. Do you see that? Yes.
Do you recall drafting a memo about this? I do. Pursuant to recent conversations, who do you recall having had a recent conversation with?
I believe that it was with other command staff members, certainly with the sheriff. I don't remember if the
undersheriff was involved, most likely was, but I don't remember specifically everyone who would be involved in that. I'm addressing it to the two parties, so I'm assuming at the time that I wrote it that that's what I had in mind. Q Okay. That's what I'm wondering -- if you had a broader
audience with the use of our recent conversations. A It might have. I don't recall. But since they -- I was
reporting to them that it was my chain of command, obviously, I'm writing up to my chain of command in this memo. Q Okay. The rest of that sentence goes on, "There is some
additional information that I should submit for your review and consideration." A Yes. Do you see that?
Page 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Do you have any recollection as to why you felt that there should be more submitted?
I think that basically, this was to memorialize information that we had discussed.
Okay.
A part of the issue here had to do with his use of a
computer; correct? A Q Right. And his concern that there was a compromise in the department and he had investigations that were sensitive and he didn't -he was concerned about people seeing his work. In the third
paragraph it says that he was concerned about the tracking and monitoring of his laptop from the IT people. MR. KAMERRER: Do you want to just take the time and
read the whole thing before you answer the question? THE WITNESS: yes. MR. KAMERRER: THE WITNESS: Q A (By Mr. Butler) Why don't you do that? Okay. That's what I'm trying to track here,
Do you recall the situation now?
On the third paragraph that you were asking about, some kind of -- I forget the word that you used. Some kind of a word of --
Let's actually go back now that you've read the whole thing. MR. BUTLER: reminder. Thank you Counsel, I appreciate the
Take the time and read the document if you know. Now that you've read the document, do you
(By Mr. Butler)
Page 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
recall what was going on in the department at the time that would cause you to submit additional information to this memo for review and consideration? A I'm not making any connection to something other than just the overall concern about his behavior. Q Okay. In the third paragraph, there's -- he's raising concern
in a conversation with you about surveillance of his computer by the IT people. A This information was coming to me from the detective unit -- I can't specifically remember, I should say, members of the detective unit about his suspicions, paranoia or whatever -however you want to categorize it as being monitored by IT. And some of the comments that the group was forwarding, kind of voicing a concern about his behavior. Q Okay. So the third paragraph, it starts with, "During Deputy
Murphy's," that's not personal knowledge to you from a conversation with Murphy. from other people? A Q Right. Okay. him." A Q A I did. So that's more personal knowledge. I specifically had a meeting with him on the fourth paragraph. The paragraph preceding that was coming to me through the Because the fourth paragraph, you use the, "I met with That's a summary of what you got
Page 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
supervisory channels. Q Okay. Thanks. And then if you turn the page, the second to
the last paragraph says, "In addition." A Q Mm-hm. Yes. When did you become
Was there a website Whatcom Uncovered? aware of the website Whatcom Uncovered?
I don't recall exactly when.
It was clearly up and running
when I went to it, one of the first times that I took a look at it. Somebody told me about it, I don't remember who, but there I went there mainly
was quite a bit of discussion about it.
because this issue came up of the residents there and Deputy Peterson and being in charge as the -- in the chief's position that I was in at that time of having our resident deputies and also our agreement and contract with Seattle City Light. situation became of particular concern for me. Q A Q Okay. How many times did you visit Whatcom Uncovered? That
I don't know. Were you aware of anybody else in the sheriff's department that had viewed Whatcom Uncovered?
Not firsthand knowledge, but I assume that most of the command staff had looked at what was being put out there.
Okay. (Marked Deposition Exhibit No. 7)
(By Mr. Butler)
Showing you what's been marked as Exhibit No.
7, it's a memo that appears to be from you dated May 12, 2011
Page 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to Chief Criminal Deputy Chadwick. A Q A Q Yes. And do you recall writing this? Yes. Can you tell me what was going on? would cause you to write this? A
Do you see that?
What was going on that
I believe that -- without crosschecking the dates, but I believe that this relates to an incident that he became involved in while he was off duty in his personal vehicle and in the company of, I think, at least one of his family members. In addition, we had been warned by the guild that members of the guild performing any investigative or on duty or deputy sheriff's duties, as they stated in here, would likely result... And this is their language, so we were sensitive to their concerns and warnings about investigations or official actions on off duty time.
Q A
Do you remember any more specifics about the conduct? If it's the incident, if I'm correct, thinking off the top of my head about what the incident relates to. This was something
that came through Planning & Development or that he contacted Planning & Development and he initially called people out or demanded to meet people after hours regarding a tip or investigative information that he wanted to follow-up on right away that had to be done on the weekend as I recall. And he
Page 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
didn't feel that it could wait until regular business hours. Q Okay. (Marked Deposition Exhibit No. 8) Q (By Mr. Butler) Showing you what's been marked as Exhibit No.
8, which is an e-mail reportedly from you, November 9, 2011 at 12:31 to Steve Cooley. The subject is, Murphy documents, Do you see that?
attached -- H & I drive search. A Q A Q A Yes.
And then there's a number of attachments listed. Right. Can you tell me what, "H & I drive search" is? On the county computer system, the way that it is set up for the sheriff's office, your H drive would be synonymous to your MyDocuments. If you were doing drafts or you were putting together whatever computer documents, that's your drive that's assigned to you, and an I drive is a departmental shared drive.
Q A
Do you know why you did a search? I believe that I was requested to. I think that this was
probably -- again, I would have to go back and line the dates up to find out what I was doing at that time -- a public information request, but I'm not positive just looking at this. Q Any reason why Steve Cooley couldn't have done the H&I drive search and why you did it? (Ms. Beschen Enters Deposition)
Page 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
I think it's pretty much standard practice and I know that Information Technology has had us do our own queries and respond back just to what we found. I don't know if he can log in. I don't think that he
can see my H drive without Information Technology going in and changing all of the permissions. own search. Q A So this is a search of your H drive or Murphy's H drive? I think that it's of mine, the best that I can recall. (Marked Deposition Exhibit No. 9) Q (By Mr. Butler) Showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 9, So they just have you do your
it purports to be an e-mail that you received from Steve Cooley on April 17th to you, regarding a draft response to guild requests for AI-2012-022. A Q A Q A Yes. Do you recall this? Yes, I do. So what do you recall about this? I believe that this is a draft of what was going to be sent to the guild as far as the disposition of this concern, regarding a posting. Q And so the guild had requested the investigation? you understood? A That the guild requested it? saying that. No. I don't think that I'm Is that what Do you see that?
Page 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q A
"I recommend you respond to the Guild's request for a copy." The guild, just by standard practice, always requests a copy of any administrative investigation on their members once they're complete. And, actually, we have to provide that by the So I think that this response
collective bargaining agreement.
is explaining why there wasn't a full investigative file to send them since the matter was closed. Q A Was there an investigation done though? No. There was a review of what the posting was to determine if
an investigation needed to be done. (Marked Deposition Exhibit No. 10) Q (By Mr. Butler) Showing you what's been marked as Exhibit No. It's from you to Elfo, Nyhus,
10, this is three days later.
Cooley and Roff requesting the same -- if you look back at No. 9, it is the same investigation; correct? A Q Right. So it says there that there was an investigation. that? A Q A Yes. Sure. It wasn't a full investigation. We basically were in a So if I can clarify? Do you see
situation where we had to comply with the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement. Any time information comes
forward that has the potential to result in discipline, we have a timeline where we're required to make an advisement to the
Page 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
subject of that investigation.
Oftentimes, what happened is In this
that we needed further review on the subject at hand.
case, we had to start the timeline for an investigation, but no full investigation was conducted. Q A Q How long does that take? How long does which -What's the timeline? You give notice and then how long does it
take to do an investigation? A Our standard timeline that we worked out with the guild and our collective bargaining agreement in totality is 90 days. that includes notification early on. But
You have a 15 day window.
Typically, you have a 60 day allotment for the investigation and then another period of time where we have to announce the results and what action we contemplate. guild and the member. Q Okay. (Marked Deposition Exhibit No. 11) Q (By Mr. Butler) Exhibit 11. Showing you what has been marked as And make notice to the
This is dated March 13th, 2012 and it's the
administration -- administrative investigative advisement from Cooley to Murphy for the same investigation number. that? A Q Okay. I see that. Do you see
It's a multi-page document; but on the 14th, the second page, there's a memo to you from Cooley regarding his public web
Page 32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
postings. A Q Yes, I do.
Do you see that?
The first sentence there is:
As previously directed by Sheriff
Elfo, I have been monitoring Murphy's public internet postings. (As Read). Do you see that? A Q A Q A Q A Q A I do. Were you aware of that? I was aware that he had been directed, yes. Do you know for how long? I can't tell you off the top of my head. Months; correct? I'm sorry? It had been months? That's certainly within the scope of it. exactly though. Q And if you could go to the fourth page, there's an e-mail attached there from Gibson to you on the 20th. A Q A Q Yes. Do you recall that conversation? I do. Tell me, where did that conversation take place? phone? A In-person? His office? Your office? Was it on the I couldn't tell you
It could have been both. than once.
I think that we talked about it more I
I believe that we talked about it on the phone.
Page 33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
do have meetings with Dan Gibson when we have personnel matters that are pending. It could have been any one of those. I know
that I talked to him at least on the phone. Q It concludes that this particular entry would not be an appropriate basis to pursue discipline. A Q Yes, I do. Would it be fair to say that from your recollection of the end of '11, beginning of '12, that there was a number of issues presented to Gibson? Can we discipline him for this? Can we Do you see that?
discipline him for this?
And that's what he's referring to,
this particular one isn't appropriate for discipline? A I would hate to try to put my interpretation on exactly what he might have meant in that regard. Q You're aware of more than one inquiry of, can we discipline him for this; correct? A We had more than one discussion in general terms, for sure. About social media, it was becoming an issue of concern as it is for most agencies, of social media postings and things that are -- that may tend to impact the public trust and confidence in public safety agencies. So I know that we had a number of discussions and seeking advice on how we should handle those. What is -- what
would constitute grounds for disciplinary action or an investigation. Q It was determined that it didn't violate any policy; correct?
Page 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. KAMERRER: calls for speculation. Q (By Mr. Butler) exhibit.
Well, I'm going to insert an objection,
If you would go to the last page of the Elfo says that it
The second to the last sentence.
may not have violated policy. A Q A Well, I see that it says that it may not have. Are you aware of any policy that says that it did violate? Well, I think earlier in this documentation, that the appropriate sections of our rules and regulations, that if they did apply in this circumstance, these were probably the ones that we would be looking at. Again, we would not issue a notice of investigation, A) Without being under the timeline of the collective bargaining agreement requirement to do so. And, B) Without some concern
that a violation of our rules and regulations or conduct has occurred that would be subject to discipline. Q You were aware that Murphy had a personal issue with Cooley; correct? A Q Yes. Is it your opinion that with that animosity, if you will, that conflict, it is appropriate to have Cooley doing these investigations? A Q I thought that it was entirely appropriate. Okay. Mede testified that he didn't think that it would be
appropriate for himself to be involved because of his animosity
Page 35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
with Murphy. Do you disagree with Mede's assessment that his personal conflict between a deputy and himself could cloud that judgment, so he just wanted to stay away from that? MR. KAMERRER: I want to insert an objection. It
calls for speculation and it's argumentive. THE WITNESS: I would certainly take his opinion and
preference and his feeling about that matter into consideration, but there's a vast difference between what we would be asking Sergeant Mede to do and what we would be asking Inspector Cooley to do. Q (By Mr. Butler) Were you aware if Cooley asked to not do this
investigation into Murphy in the spring of 2012 because of the conflict? A Yes. I think, to his credit, he brought forward that point for
consideration, which I considered, and I know that the sheriff gave due consideration to that point of view as well. Q Was there a reason why Cooley, who had reservations -- if it's a known conflict -- why Cooley had to be tasked with that? there nobody else that could do it in the department? A That's part of it in terms of a resource issue. Part of it is Was
his expertise and his knowledge and his track record of conducting these investigations in an unbiased and a very thorough manner. And coupled with the oversight that we have
put into the investigation, making sure that there were also
Page 36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
other command staff members that were vetting and checking what was done, just to obviously, because of the concern, to back Steve up so that it wasn't just him at times when there should have been someone else there just to verify. So we thought
that we could appropriately address any concerns that might come up about that. Q So you don't think that that compromised the investigative work at all? A Q I don't think that it did at all, no. Would you agree with me that an investigator uses the investigator's judgment in how they do an investigation? A Q A To a degree. Okay. They choose the questions they ask? We have
They do, but we see the interviews on the questions. them trans -- recorded. are recorded.
That's one reason that the interviews
We go over those and that's why we have a
vetting process for the investigation. Q Okay. What about video? Do you video them so that you can see
the body language and the palpable hostility? A We don't video them, but they're always attended by a representative for the employee. Q Okay. Cooley's reputation in the department. Your Is he well
understanding of how the deputies relate to Cooley? respected in the department? MR. KAMERRER:
I'll insert an objection, calls for
Page 37
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
speculation.
Go ahead. From what I know, he is. But I will say
THE WITNESS:
that there's been some effort to undermine him in that position. It's not an enviable job, you know, investigating But it's a critical function that But he's very
other members of the agency. we have to have.
It's not the most popular.
straightforward and honest and he does a good job. Q (By Mr. Butler) One of the issues that the deputies have has
to do with his credibility before becoming the inspector in relationship to the conflict that he had with Murphy; correct? MR. KAMERRER: speculation. THE WITNESS: credibility? Q (By Mr. Butler) Yeah. People are concerned that -- I mean, if Let me make sure that I understand. His I'll insert an objection, calls for
he is providing alcohol to an underage cadet, that maybe he's not the best guy to be investigating their behavior. A I don't believe that credibility was an issue in that investigation. He readily said that, yes, absolutely. She was
underage as far as the state statute is concerned, but a member of the Armed Forces, an adult. It was a mistake. He was disciplined for it. He was
straightforward and upfront the entire time and said, yes, this is exactly what happened. However, there was more information inserted into that,
Page 38
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Q A Q A A Q A Q Q I think, in an attempt to besmirch his reputation or his credibility. But we've never found anything that reflected
negatively on his credibility other than the one single incident where he was disciplined. Okay. Did he bring that forward to your knowledge? I've been
taking -Who is he? I've been taking -Who is he? I'm sorry. Did Cooley bring that forward? I've been taking
this young underage female out for drinks? No. How did it come to light to your knowledge? From what I understand, it was from a detective. brought it forward. I -- we're almost done. understand. Is the conduct that he engaged in, buying alcohol, providing alcohol for an underage person -- is that legal behavior because she's in the Armed Forces? MR. KAMERRER: I would just insert an objection that I just want to make sure that I Beth Larson
it misstates the evidence. THE WITNESS: (By Mr. Butler) Sure. Could you ask me that again, please? You made the comment that somehow
because she was in the Armed Forces and an adult, that it was
Page 39
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q Q A Q Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A not a problem. Was that not a crime? I object, misstates his testimony. It's a crime in the State of Washington
to provide alcohol with a couple of exceptions to someone -(By Mr. Butler) A parent can. Okay. Was Steve Cooley her parent? Those exceptions are?
Which he obviously was not. Okay. But the law states, generally, it is against the law in the State of Washington. Do you know if he was prosecuted? No. He was not.
Why not? That would be the call on the person that we referred it to. We referred it to the City of Lynden for review. That was Steve -- that was Lee Bell did that; correct? I don't know what part he might have had in this. Okay. But you're aware that your office, the sheriffs, have
arrested people for that conduct and had them prosecuted for providing -- furnishing alcohol to a minor; is that correct? We have arrested people to that offense. Okay. He readily admitted that he did that?
He did. It's a crime?
Page 40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Objection, asked and answered. It is against the state statute to I stated those only
provide with the exceptions that I stated.
because the way that you asked me the question implied that he was -- it wasn't really -- I didn't see it in the context that we looked at it from the investigation the way that you stated it. That's all. I don't believe that he bought her alcohol. know. I don't
But, you know, part of that was, from what I understand,
was at his home or at an establishment. Q (By Mr. Butler) And you don't think that behavior of knowingly
breaking the law by providing alcohol to a minor, you don't think that that behavior tends towards a person's credibility if they are intentionally violating the law? MR. KAMERRER: THE WITNESS: it. Objection, it's argumentative. I didn't approve of it, don't approve of
But as far as going to his credibility, he was honest He made a mistake, did something that he certainly He was disciplined for it and to my
about it.
should not have done.
knowledge, that's the only issue that he's had since he's been on the department. Q (By Mr. Butler) Now that we've flushed that out a little bit,
going back, is that issue, what you're aware of, some of the deputies having a problem with him being the investigator? A I would -- I would conclude that. Yes. I'm sure that that
Page 41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
causes them some concern. Q Are you aware of any other issues that the deputies have with him doing -- being in that role, other than the one that we've just described, furnishing? A Q No. Not that I know of.
Okay. MR. BUTLER: THE WITNESS: That's all that I have at this time. If you would like, I can clarify, I
think, on my promotion, if you want a better window on that. MR. BUTLER: THE WITNESS: MR. BUTLER: your head on that. No. If it doesn't matter, that's fine. It doesn't. I didn't mean to get into
I was just trying to get landscape of where
you were in '08 and '09. THE WITNESS: MR. KAMERRER: THE WITNESS: Okay. I've got a couple of questions. Okay.
EXAMINATION OF JEFF PARKS BY MR. KAMERRER
BY MR. KAMERRER: Q In the training that you have received concerning Brady issues, when we say Brady, we're talking about a United States Supreme Court decision. A Right. Do you realize that?
Page 42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Is Brady the basic policy that the sheriff's office and the prosecutor are obligated to follow?
A Q A Q A Q A Q
Yes. So the policy comes from the United States Supreme Court? From case law. Okay. There are other cases since then that have refined --
There are. -- that decision? There are. Are those things that you learn about in the trainings and seminars that you participate in?
Yes.
Particularly, our obligations to provide that information
if we have it. Q Okay. MR. BUTLER: Following up -- are you done? No other questions at this time.
MR. KAMERRER:
EXAMINATION OF JEFF PARKS BY MR. BUTLER
BY MR. BUTLER: Q Following up on that Jeff -- or Undersheriff Parks, is there an unspoken word or unspoken policy that you're aware of in the sheriff's department to keep essentially the dirty laundry in-house? MR. KAMERRER: Objection, argumentative.
Page 43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE WITNESS: Q (By Mr. Butler) changed? MR. KAMERRER: again? MR. BUTLER: Q (By Mr. Butler)
No. Has that
Historically, has there been?
I'm sorry, could you ask the question
Sure. Is there an
The initial question was:
informal practice or policy to essentially keep the dirty laundry in-house as opposed to forwarding it to the prosecutor's office? MR. KAMERRER: a follow up to that? MR. BUTLER: Q A Q (By Mr. Butler) No. So in the entire time that you have been in the sheriff's department, all Brady issues have been run up the pole the same as always? A I can't speak to that specifically because in 31 or almost 32 years, I would -- I would -- in the entire time I've been at the sheriff's office, I couldn't tell you if they were all handled the same or even handled appropriately. Q Has there been a shift in policy to run them up and refer them to McEachran? years? Has there been a shift in that in the last I did have a follow up to that. And he answered that no. Did you have
Has that changed?
Page 44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q A Q A
In the last year? Years? Years. Working your way backwards. The only thing that I can think of is when we got more clarity, more training on the issue of when we need to provide that information to the prosecutor. I can recall when this first started circulating in the law enforcement world that it was a little unclear as to when and how that information was -- there was an affirmative duty for law enforcement to give that information to the prosecutor. But clearly now being defined as part of the prosecutorial team, there's a clear obligation and duty and that is becoming more standard within the law enforcement realm. But I can tell you that at some point, there was probably not a really clear -- it wasn't clearly settled on exactly how that information was to be provided or when.
And you're aware that the sheriff's office has destroyed discipline records to avoid having to turn over old or past indiscretions of deputies; correct?
I don't think that that is the case. file, it's simply in --
If we've destroyed a
Q A
In the early 2000s, you're not aware that files were destroyed? I do know that we have disposed of files according to the retention laws.
Page 45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Okay.
And that had previously not been destroyed according to
the retention laws; correct? MR. KAMERRER: THE WITNESS: Objection. Vague. It's confusing. I didn't manage
You know, I'm not sure.
those files for a number of years.
Really didn't have routine
access to those files until about 2009 when this became our purview. So at that time, what -- prior to that, what the undersheriff or sheriff directed or what the policy was, I wasn't directly involved. Q (By Mr. Butler) In your training, has your training included
individual liability to you as an individual if you are aware of Brady material that doesn't get forwarded up? MR. KAMERRER: Q (By Mr. Butler) Objection, vague.
Because you lose your immunity? Objection, vague. Go ahead.
There's been material -- I'm aware of Why there's an affirmative
material being presented on that.
duty and what some of the ramifications can be. Q (By Mr. Butler) Has that been discussed in the department as
to why Elfo or the sheriff is the only gatekeeper to refer to the prosecutors -- and if you have or the other deputies have individual liability if they don't? A I don't know if we have discussed it in that context. MR. BUTLER: Okay. Nothing further.
Page 46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE WITNESS: MR. KAMERRER:
Okay. That's all.
(Signature Reserved) (Deposition Adjourned)
Page 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) COUNTY OF ISLAND ) ss.
I, Kristen M. Uhlig, the undersigned CCR in and for the State of Washington, do hereby certify: That the annexed and foregoing deposition of the witness named herein was taken stenographically before me and transcribed by me; I further certify that the witness examined, read, and signed the deposition after the same was transcribed, unless indicated in the record that the parties and the witness waive the signature; I further certify that all of the objections made at the time of said examination to my qualifications or the manner of taking the deposition, or to the conduct of any party, have been noted by me upon said deposition; I further certify that I am not a relative or employee or attorney or counsel of any of the parties to said action or counsel, and that I am not financially interested in the said action or the outcome thereof; I further certify that the deposition, as transcribed, is a full, true, and accurate transcript of the testimony, including all questions and answers, and all objections, motions and exceptions of counsel made and taken at the time of the foregoing examination; I further certify that I am sealing the deposition in an envelope with the title to the above cause thereon and marked "Deposition Upon Oral Examination" of said witness and promptly causing the same to be delivered or forwarded to Counsel for the Opposing Party; IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this ___ day of____________, 2014.
__________________________ Kristen M. Uhlig, #1934 Certified Court Reporter, Residing in Clinton, Washington.

Jeff Parks - Deposition Transcript (Federal)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Jeff Parks - Deposition Transcript (Federal)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v.

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

BY MR. BUTLER................................................4 BY MR. KAMERRER.............................................41 BY MR. BUTLER...............................................42

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

So that was in overseeing the civil bureau and the

2001 that I was moved over to the chief criminal deputy.

From '01 to '09, you were undersheriff -- I

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

Just right in there, there's just the chief civil -- I

He has fewer employees

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

to talk to you about now.

speaking on behalf of the agency, but Jeff Parks.

Any incidents, issues that you've had experience with

first name, because I would probably mess those up.

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

My opinion is that Jason has some

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

But I don't have any reason to believe that he

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

I know that we had some issues with a court case

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

And so some of those discussions, you know, occur

How about in his personal life? Objection.

MR. KAMERRER: Q (By Mr. Butler)

MR. KAMERRER: THE WITNESS:

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

If not, she'll hit you on the hand. I know.

Mede, with regard to his credibility?

Has his credibility been challenged?

views or differing recollections on what happened in an incident.

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

There was a review.

There was a preliminary inquiry

to what we were reviewing.

How many of those situations have come up in your

So back to specifically regarding Brady or just specifically regarding just credibility?

Let's go with credibility first and then we'll

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

There have been a few.

I don't know if I can enumerate them,

investigated for one. A

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

final product -- deliver that to the sheriff.

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

counsel or to give it to the sheriff or prosecutor? A Q A A number. A number of them, yes.

Where there's a Brady issue involved that you have

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

It was a lieutenant at the time.

It is a -- essentially a hypothetical Go ahead.

question and it's an inadequate hypothetical.

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

THE WITNESS: Q (By Mr. Butler) hypothetical. A Q A

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

I can't think of -- I can't think of that coming in that

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014 Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

A part of the issue here had to do with his use of a

Do you recall the situation now?