Memorandum

Date: October 8, 2020

To: Detective Michael R. Brown (67798) Via: Direct
From: Undersheriff Patti Cole-Tindall
Re: LOUDERMILL HEARING NOTICE, DETECTIVE MICHAEL BROWN, IIU2020-276

Investigative 180-day due date: January 1, 2021

REVIEW OF INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS

I have reviewed Chief Troy Olmsted’s Findings Memo, which includes substantial detail. This
memo will not repeat all of that detail, and I hereby incorporate by reference the factual
summary outlined in the Findings Memo, to supplement this memo.

BACKGROUND

On July 4th, 2020 you posted highly controversial material on Facebook that inspired public
outcry towards you and the King County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO) through hundreds of
complaints that led to this investigation. Some complainants forwarded screen shots that
included additional posts pre-dating the July 4th, post. A total of eight Facebook posts and
comments were reviewed in this investigation, dating from June 1, to about July 4, 2020.

It is important to review the context in which these comments and posts were made, as that is
relevant to both whether these comments touch on matters of public concern and the extent to
which Sheriff’s Office’s operations could be disrupted and negatively impacted by your speech.
Understanding the current climate also sheds light on the potential damage to the department’s
reputation and effectiveness.

On May 25, 2020, an African American man, George Floyd, was killed by Minneapolis police, in
a highly pubic and highly criticized interaction with police (one officer held his knee on Floyd’s
neck for 8 minutes and 47 seconds). This event sparked national outrage, including protests
here in Seattle. On May 31, and into the morning hours of June 1, 2020, those protests became
violent and destructive in some instances in downtown Seattle, resulting in rioters burning police
cars, destructing property, and looting. Months earlier a young black African American man,
Ahmad Arbery, was killed by two white men driving a pick-up truck, who chased him down and
shot him, believing he may have entered a home under construction in the neighborhood
(Georgia). Also months earlier, a young female African American, Breonna Taylor, was shot by
police during the execution of a search warrant (Kentucky). National attention revisited these

Page 1 of 9
prior events in the aftermath of the anger over the Floyd killing (the Officer has been charged
with murder). The use of force by police in a number of other situations have followed, and
have been publicized nationally, adding fuel to the heightened tensions across the nation.

In Seattle, on June 5, 2020, in response to citizen/protester complaints about the Seattle Police
Department’s (SPD’s) use of teargas to control protesters and/or rioters, Seattle Mayor Jenny
Durkan put in place a 30-day moratorium on the use of teargas by the SPD.

In an effort to reduce nightly confrontations between police and protesters, SPD withdrew from
its East Precinct and a few blocks of a nearby Capitol Hill neighborhood, an area that became
known as the CHAZ/CHOP zone. On June 20, 2020, Lorenzo Anderson, a young black man,
was shot dead in or near the CHOP/CHAZ zone, leading to the city’s closure of this zone on
about July 1st. This “police free” zone existed between June 8, and July 1, 2020.

In the early morning hours of July 4th, two women were struck by a car on the I-5 freeway while
protesting. This portion of the freeway in downtown Seattle had been shut down by the
Washington State patrol, but a driver circumvented the barriers and witnesses say, drove at a
high rate of speed without slowing into Summer Taylor, 24, (critically injured) and a 32-year old
female (seriously injured). Summer Taylor died later that day according to news reports that
came out by 7pm Saturday July 4th. By this time, the I-5 Freeway in downtown Seattle had
been closed each night for 19 consecutive nights. On July 4th, you posted a meme that included
a picture of three stick figure people being run over by a car. Words embedded in the meme
stated, “All Lives Splatter,” and “Get your ASS off the road.”

As Chief Olmsted noted, your job assignment in the intelligence unit put you in a position to
watch the unrest in real time. You stated that SPD had been putting up with it and finally were
moving in, when the CHOP/CHAZ was being “reclaimed” by police on about July 1, 2020.
These decisions and events were controversial and caused frustration among many.

I will review each posting separately below in chronological order:

June 1, 2020, “Knock Out” Comment

You reposted a video from Baltimore showing a black female protester striking officers twice,
after which one officer punches the woman, knocking her to the ground, where she appears
to be unconscious. You wrote a post with the video that reads, "When in doubt... Knock em
out".

You said this phrase was a “Hell’s Angel” motto, not your own saying. You describe the
meaning of the phrase as ending the threat, but said you were not trying to convey anything
about police use of force. Our use of force policy permits physical use of force when other
options would be ineffective or impractical (GOM 6.00.040). The use of force must be
objectively reasonable considering all the circumstances (GOM 6.00.010). Based on the
short clip of video, it appears the use of force in this case would likely be considered
excessive, unnecessary use of force. There were multiple officers present that could have
contained the threat without knocking the woman unconscious. As outlined in RCW
9A.16.010, the force “necessary” means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use
of force appeared to exist.

RCW 9A.16.020 outlines when the use of force is lawful, which is limited by its language to
the force that is necessary. The actions endorsed here were above and beyond what was

Page 2 of 9
 necessary under the law, given the available information in the video. The actions in the
video would have violated KCSO policy, and in violation of our media policy your addition of
the words, “When in doubt…knock em out,” amounts to “advocating criminal activity or law
violations.”

Your endorsement of the use of force in this situation, against an African American
protester, had a negative impact on the department at a time when scrutiny on police use of
force, particularly against African Americans, was at the forefront of local and national
debate. Your post has and would likely continue to be used in the future to discredit you
and the Sheriff’s Office. [NOTE: the Baltimore officer was suspended.]

June 3, 2020, Anti-War Protesters, Spitting Out Their Teeth Comment

You posted a photo of protesters blocking I-5 that dated back to the late 1960's or early
1970's. The caption above the post, written by you reads, "I think a few anti-war protesters
were, spitting out their teeth back then. The Black Hats had arrived".

You stated the black hats was a reference to members of the King County Sheriff’s Office,
being called upon to assist, and when they came on the scene, brought the situation under
control. The inference being that they knocked people’s teeth out. While you state you
were addressing historical protests, the context in which you posted this was 2-3 days after
extremely extensive protests, on 5/31 and 6/1, that included some violence and property
damage. The situation was declared a riot, and KCSO was called upon to provide mutual
aid, including infrastructure protection of the SPD East Precinct. The “spitting out their
teeth,” implies being hit in the mouth so hard that teeth are knocked out. Your comment
suggests that extreme measures such as knocking out teeth is a sanctioned and successful
way to manage protesters. The protesters pictured here do not appear to be engaged in
any violence, but are blocking a freeway. Such violence against protesters or rioters would
not be sanctioned under our use of force policy. Particularly given the timing of this post, it
negatively impacts the public’s faith and trust in the Sheriff’s Office, and the reputation of the
Sheriff’s Office.

The previous analysis above regarding RCW 9A, necessary force, the lawful use of force,
and KCSO Use of Force policy, applies here.

June 13, 2020, Colonel Sanders

You posted a photo of a large cardboard cutout of Colonel Sanders being moved by a
couple of KFC employees. The caption above the post, written by you reads, "The Colonel
falls at the KFC in the CHAZ”.

You explain the context of this post as related to the national effort to remove confederate
statues, like Robert E. Lee. You saw the toppling of some statues as vandalism. You also
understood the rationale behind the idea of statue removal. The argument for removal of
confederate statues is grounded in recognition that the confederacy’s effort to maintain the
system of slavery of African Americans should not be revered in the form of statues. You
equate the removal of the cardboard Colonel Sanders to this statue removal effort, making
light of it.

While insensitive to the current climate, I do not find that disruption to the department
outweighs the public interest in discourse with regard to this particular post.

Page 3 of 9
June 21, 2020, Lorenzo Anderson’s Last Stand At Cal Anderson Park
The day after a young African American man, Lorenzo Anderson, was shot dead in or near
the CHOP/CHAZ zone you posted a comment referencing this murder. You wrote, "Say
what? The CHAZ/CHOP have renamed Cal Anderson Park the, Lil Renz's Last Stand Park".

This post downplays the violent death of a young black man connected to the controversial
CHAZ/CHOP zone. The withdrawal of police from this area was highly controversial and
drew much criticism and frustration, and was clearly an issue of public concern. The focus
of this protest zone, however controversial in its methods, was racial inequality, and how
such inequality is borne out through law enforcement use of force. Your identification as a
law enforcement officer weighing in on the murder of a black man in such a cavalier tone,
rose to the level of Conduct Unbecoming. The social context, already outlined in this memo,
contributes to my analysis of this event.

June 22, 2020, Clip From A Movie Scene From “Tombstone”

You posted this movie clip and wrote this comment above the post, "Here they come CHOP
CHAZ". The caption below the clip reads, “Tombstone... 'You Tell Em I'm Commin, And
Hell's Commin With Me'”.

This graphic video clip shows a law enforcement officer gunning down and threatening
suspects/citizens. This post endorses police use of lethal force in a situation where such
use is clearly not justified. Your specific reference to the CHOP/CHAZ area connects your
message to the protests concerning racial inequity. Your statements reflect a frustration that
many others felt about the lawlessness on Capitol Hill and removal of SPD from their own
precinct. However, the national focus was on law enforcement. Scrutiny was specifically
focused on police use of force. There were several documented incidents of inappropriate
uses of force across the country that were highly publicized and legitmately criticized. In this
context, the suggestion in your post that using lethal force to “take back” this area on Capitol
Hill was damaging to your effectiveness and the effectiveness of the KCSO to carry out its
mission.

I also find the message in this post “amounts to advancing criminal activity or law violations,”
as set out previoulsy.

July 1, 2020, “SPD ‘Poppin Smoke’ Finally!!!

You posted the above statement on July 1, the day city workers with SPD were brought in to
clear out protesters who had been camping out in and occupying the CHOP/CHAZ area of
Capitol Hill. You stated the smoke you were referencing was Viet Nam era military use of
smoke for identifying locations and concealment. Such a use is not relevant to the SPD’s
use of smoke, where the use of teargas has been a primary topic discussed in the media,
and its criticism by some, led the Mayor to ban its use for 30 days. It’s hard to imagine any
interpretation other than SPD using teargas or other chemical irritants to clear this zone.
You expressed that you meant that SPD was “moving in, doing something,” where they had
been prevented by the City from taking such action earlier.

Your post infers that SPD will use or should be using teargas to clear people from the area.
In balance, this post causes disruption to the KCSO because it advocates the use of

Page 4 of 9
 teargas, whether or not justified, a controversial topic related to law enforcement’s use of
force with regard to crowd management.

July 4, 2020, “All Lives Splatter”

You utilized a social media site to share a post of a meme that included three stick figures
being struck by a car. The captions incorporated within the meme read, “ALL LIVES
SPLATTER,” and “KEEP YOUR ASS OFF THE ROAD”. You commented on this post with
the word, “GEE,” which appeared at the top of the post.

Your use of the word “GEE,” even if were clear that you meant you were surprised a
government agency would post this meme, does not soften or mitigate the message
conveyed by the pictures and words in the post itself. Despite your stated intentions, that
your thoughts were about the risks for pedestrians on freeways, the obvious impact of the
post was quite different. You posted this the same day that two protesters were hit by a car
on a Seattle freeway, a freeway that had been closed for a protest. The driver was arrested
because the event appeared to be intentional based on the facts known that day. Even
though both of the injured victims were alive at the time you posted this, it was known that
their conditions were critical and serious. The message at the bottom, “Keep your ass off
the road,” conveys that it was the protesters’ fault that someone drove into them.

I also find that the phrase “All Lives Splatter,” and its play on the “Black Lives Matter,”
slogan was obvious, particularly during this time when racial inequity protests had been front
and center in our community since May. I do not find it credible that you did not equate
these two phrases. This is especially true for those of us in law enforcement, as we are the
primary focus of these protests, and where the most prominent and well-known group
involved is the organization of Black Lives Matter. This meme was created sometime after
the event in Charlottesville, VA, where white supremacists killed a protester by driving over
her.

This is the post that drew the most criticism by complainants. It callously endorsed the
actions of those who injured protesters on the freeway. I find it constitutes Conduct
Unbecoming.

July 4, 2020 Or Shortly Thereafter, Covid-19 Comment

Shortly after the posting of the “All Lives Splatter” meme described above, you posted a
comment associated with that same image that said: “I see a couple of people got infected
with Covid-19 from the hood of a car on I-5 last night”.

You explained that your intent was related to potential over-reporting of COVID -19 deaths,
including an experience with your father’s recent death. This post is integrated with the “All
Lives Splatter” meme, which showed protesters being struck by a vehicle, with the words,
“Keep your ass off the road.” This compounded the insensitivity of the prior post, by making
light once more of the critical and serious injuries to protesters, who had been apparently
struck intentionally. Your words were extremely insensitive to the victims of a suspected
serious vehicular assault.

Due to complaints you personally received about the postings on July 4, 2020, you took
down your Facebook account on July 5.

Page 5 of 9
ANALYSIS

While your settings were private, you had about 800 friends at the time, and as our media policy
language cautions, you have no control over where your posts end up and how long they exist
on the internet. The policy also cautions about social media activity being used against you by
criminal defense lawyers and others in the course of your work. Clearly, your settings did not
prevent your social media activity from coming to the attention of, and sparking outrage in,
hundreds of citizens and members in other branches of King County government.

In conducting a First Amendment analysis of the social media posts outlined here, I find that all
of the content addresses matters of public concern. That is because these issues were front
and center to not only our community, but the entire country. The analysis requires a balancing
of an employee’s interest in expressing their views on matters of public concern, against
potential disruption to the operations of the Sheriff’s Office. I find in every post but one, that the
public interest in discourse on these topics was outweighed by the disruption and harm to the
King County Sheriff’s Office, and its ability to effectively carry out its law enforcement mission.1

Members must always conduct themselves in a manner that brings credit to the Sheriff’s Office,
maintaining a level of conduct in their personal and official affairs consistent with the highest
standards of the law enforcement profession. The public’s confidence and trust in the integrity
of the KCSO is critical if it is to command and deserve the respect and confidence of the public
it serves. Your ability to be effective in law enforcement, as well as the department itself, has
been negatively impacted by your actions.

I find Conduct Unbecoming because this conduct diminished respect for the Sheriff’s Office and
a member (you), diminished confidence in the operation of the Sheriff’s Office, and adversely
affected or impaired the efficiency of a member (you).

I concur with Chief Olmsted with regard to the Acts in Violation, Media policy (1)(i): “ . . . content
that amounts to advocating criminal activity or law violations.” However, I find there are three
posts that constitute violations of this policy, not just one, as I specify below.

Therefore I find policy violations, by clear and convincing evidence, on seven posts as specified
below. My recommendations as to the specific allegations is outlined below:

ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS

 Allegation 1 – GOM 3.00.015 (1)(g): SERIOUS MISCONDUCT: Discrimination,

Harassment, Incivility, and Bigotry
Members must always conduct themselves in a manner that brings credit to the Sheriff's Office,
maintaining a level of conduct in their personal and official affairs consistent with the highest
standards of the law enforcement profession. Any sustained charges that a member has
engaged in conduct unbecoming and/or misconduct will result in corrective action or discipline
up to and including dismissal from the Sheriff's Office.

Members while on-duty shall not engage in discussion or conduct that belittles others or
discriminates against others on the basis of: Race, Color, Age, Sex, Sexual orientation,

1
I do not find that the “Colonel Sanders” post rises to the level of a violation.

Page 6 of 9
 Religion, National origin; or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability. Gender
identity or expression.
EXONERATED
This policy applies to “on duty” conduct, and this conduct occurred off duty.

 Allegation 2 – GOM 3.00.015 (2)(k): MISCONDUCT: Conduct Unbecoming –

Any sustained misconduct charges in the following categories will be considered serious
violations of the core values of the King County Sheriff’s Office. Violations of these rules may
result in discipline up to and including termination.
Conduct Unbecoming: means behavior that generally tends to:
 Diminish respect for the Sheriff’s Office or member.
 Diminish confidence in the operation of the Sheriff’s Office.
 Adversely affect or impair the efficiency of a member.
 Adversely affect the morale or discipline of the Sheriff’s Office.
SUSTAINED
The following posts constitute Conduct Unbecoming:
 June 1, 2020, post, “When in doubt, knock ‘em out”
 June 3, 2020, post, “I think a few anti-war protesters were spitting out their teeth
back then. The Black Hats had arrived.”
 June 21, 2020, “Lil Renz’s Last Stand Park”
 June 22, 2020, posted video clip of old movie footage showing a law enforcement
officer gunning down and threatening suspects/citizens
 July 1, 2020, “SPD ‘Poppin Smoke’ Finally!!!”
 July 4, 2020, “All Lives Splatter”
 July 4, 2020 (on or about), “I see a couple people got infected with the Covid-19
from the hood of a car on I-5 last night”

 Allegation 3 – GOM 3.00.020 (1) (d): PERFORMANCE STANDARDS –

Acts in violation of Sheriff's Office directives, rules, policies or procedures as set out in this
manual, or elsewhere. Specific Policy:
GOM 14.00.075 USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA: 03/13
For the purpose of this policy:
Social Media means: A category of internet-based resources that integrate user-
generated content and user participation. This includes, but is not limited to, social
networking sites, microblogging sites, photo and video sharing sites, wikis, blogs, and
news sites.
1. When using any social media department members shall not:
h. Post content containing excessive name calling, profanity, fighting words,
discriminatory epithets, sexual harassment, bullying, or gruesome language.
i. Post content that amounts to advocating criminal activity or law violations.
2. When using any social media department members should be reminded that:
a. Third-parties, including criminal defense investigators or attorneys may locate text
and graphic postings and use the content to impeach the credibility of KCSO
witnesses in a court case.
b. Even if you think your posting is "private" you may not own that content and the
owner may change its status in the future or there may be a data breach.
c. Content that you post may be available long after you have forgotten about it.
d. Even if you think your posting can be viewed only by a limited group of "friends",
those friends might share your content with third parties without your knowledge.

Page 7 of 9
 e. Posting personal information about yourself or your family may present a personal
safety risk.
SUSTAINED

The Social media policy prohibits communication that “amount to advocating criminal
activity or law violations.” GOM 14.00.075(1)(h). The following posts violate this section:
 June 1, 2020, post, “When in doubt, knock ‘em out”
 June 3, 2020, post, “I think a few anti-war protesters were spitting out their teeth
back then. The Black Hats had arrived.”
 June 22, 2020, posted video clip of old movie footage showing a law enforcement
officer gunning down and threatening suspects/citizens

DISCIPLINE/CORRECTIVE ACTION RECOMMENDATION

I have reviewed your past disciplinary history as well as the facts available to me in this case. In
2013 you had two sustained violations that resulted in a 1-day suspension. The violations were
Conduct Criminal In Nature, and Conduct Unbecoming. These violations resulted from your
conduct in Chelan County, where you were apparently intoxicated and involved in a hit and run
incident involving property damage, and engaged in related communications and interactions
that constituted conduct unbecoming.

I have considered the seriousness of your conduct, the fact that there were a series of similar
posts of this nature in a short period of time, and your work history. You have two prior
sustained major misconduct violations. I also consider your ability to be effective as a law
enforcement officer, given the ample material now available to discredit and undermine you and
your work for this agency in court processes and beyond. The blow to the department’s integrity
was staggering. The damage to your integrity and ability to continue to serve as a law
enforcement officer cannot be repaired.

Therefore I am recommending your termination from employment. I find that each sustained
violation, Conduct Unbecoming, and Acts in Violation, separately and independently warrant
termination.

LOUDERMILL NOTIFICATION

The Findings and Recommended discipline are only recommendations a this point. Before the
final decision is made, you have a right to a Loudermill Hearing with Sheriff Johanknecht. This
is an opportunity for you to present information you think should be considered in the case. This
can include mitigating factors or any other information you think should be considered before a
final decision is made.

Attendance at a Loudermill Hearing is optional, and you may choose to present written materials
for the Sheriff’s consideration in lieu of, or in addition, to appearing in person. If you choose not
to appear or present information, the final decision will be based upon the information available
at this time.

A copy of the investigative file will be provided to you, your legal representative, or labor
representative upon request. You are entitled to bring a representative of your choice to the
hearing. In addition, this representative can speak and present information on your behalf.

Page 8 of 9
Please contact Kimberly Johnson at 206 263-2555 to schedule a Loudermill/Name-clearing
hearing, confirm or waive your appearance, or submit materials. If you do not contact her or
submit materials within 14 days of receipt and signing this memo, we will assume you are
waiving your right to a Loudermill.

NOTE: You have the right to seek assistance through the county’s Employee Assistance
Program (EAP). The EAP is a service to all employees. Assessments, grief counseling, and
referrals for personal concerns such as family issues, relationship problems, alcohol and drug
problems, emotional problems affecting work life, and a wide variety of other problems are all part
of the services. EAP personnel may be reached at 206-477-0631 or 206-477-0632.

I acknowledge that I have received a copy of this memo:

________________________ __________________
Employee Date

Return original to IIU for distribution

cc: Sheriff Johanknecht

Captain Park
IIU, file

Page 9 of 9