KING COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE

516 Third Avenue, W-116

Seattle, WA 98104

Patricia Cole-Tindall
Sheriff

June 14, 2023

Ryan Abbott
15
Sent via Email and U.S. Mail

Re: Disciplinary Final Decision - IIU2022-140

Dear Ryan,

Thank you for meeting with me on January 3, 2023, and February 17, 2023, along with your PSPMA
representatives, Captain Stan Seo and Captain Eric Muller. At these Loudermill meetings we
discussed the investigation, findings and proposed discipline stemming from your actions between
October 2021 and January 2022 with regard to your relationship with Vianca Eskildsen. Also present
at the meetings were Undersheriff Jesse Anderson, IIU Sergeant Chris Przygocki, Legal Advisor
Devon Shannon, and IIU Captain Koby Hamill (on Jan 3 rd only).

I have carefully considered your statements, the statements of your representatives at the Loudermill
meetings, your work history, and reviewed the investigation file for this matter. The underlying facts
are outlined in detail in the Loudermill notice letter and I hereby incorporate them by reference.
There are five separate allegations in this investigation and, in agreement with the November 22,
2022 Loudermill notice letter from Undersheriff Anderson, I am deciding the allegations as follows:

- GOM 3.00.015(1)(b) RULES OF CONDUCT: SERIOUS MISCONDUCT: Conduct

criminal in nature
NON-SUSTAINED
- GOM 3.00.015(2)(K) RULES OF CONDUCT: MISCONDUCT: Conduct Unbecoming
SUSTAINED
- GOM 3.00.015(1)(a) RULES OF CONDUCT: SERIOUS MISCONDUCT: Making false or
fraudulent reports or statements, committing acts of dishonesty, or inducing others to do so.
SUSTAINED
 - GOM 3.00.020.1(d): RULES OF CONDUCT: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: Acts in
violation of Sheriff's Office directives, rules, policies, or procedures as set out in this manual, or
elsewhere.
SUSTAINED
- GOM 3.00.020.3: RULES OF CONDUCT: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: Appropriate
use of authority.
EXONERATED

Analysis

I agree with Chief Olmsted and the Undersheriff that there was no basis for finding a violation of
GOM 3.00.020.3. You are Exonerated on this allegation.

You have admitted to violating GOM 3.00.020.1(d) by driving Ms. Eskildsen in your patrol car
without the proper hold harmless agreement. A Sustained finding is warranted for this violation.

In Sustaining the conduct unbecoming allegation, GOM 3.00.015(2)(K), I considered the totality of
circumstances in this investigation. The primary basis for sustaining this allegation is your ongoing
use of on-duty time to communicate with Ms. Eskildsen on video calls. This includes your decisions
to answer video calls with Ms. Eskildsen during sensitive KCSO meetings without the knowledge of
the other participants on the call. After originally denying that you ever allowed her to be present on a
call with you during a work meeting, at the second Loudermill meeting, you acknowledged that you
did answer calls from her while in on-duty Teams meetings. However, you minimized the duration
and significance of these calls, indicating that you may have “flashed” your camera at the KCSO
video calls but would not have had her on the calls for any significant duration. Based on the quality
and quantity of video and photo evidence showing your communication with Ms. Eskildsen, your
characterization of the time she communicated with you, and had access to work meetings while you
were on-duty, is not credible.

Your substantial on-duty communication with Ms. Eskildsen diminishes respect for and confidence in
the Sheriff’s Office as a whole, and our respect for and confidence in you. I consider your facilitation
of Ms. Eskildsen’s viewing and listening to your on-duty meetings and other similar activities to be a
significant breach of trust. At least one of the meetings she had access to was a Critical Incident
Review Board meeting where sensitive information and privileged legal advice was being
communicated. Your choice to give a girlfriend access to that meeting is deeply troubling and gives
me significant concerns about your judgment and trustworthiness. Your job performance and focus
was undoubtedly impacted by this relationship. Moreover, your unwillingness to be candid in your
IIU interviews about how Ms. Eskildsen came to possess the screenshots of these on-duty meetings
further supports sustaining this finding. Your role as a leader in this office makes your actions even
more concerning. We expect Captains to model integrity, hard-work, and respect for themselves and
this Office. Your actions fell short in each of these areas. All of this weighs into my decision on level
of discipline for this allegation.
The allegation for conduct criminal in nature, GOM 3.00.015(1)(b), must be established by clear and
convincing evidence. The criminal conduct at issue is forgery or altering a government seal on a
digital image of your vaccination card. See RCW 9A.60.020; 18 U.S.C. 1017. While I believe it is
very likely that you altered your vaccination card and texted it to Ms. Eskildsen, I agree with
Undersheriff Anderson that the information we have does not provide clear and convincing evidence
that you were the person taking the criminal action. This finding is Non-Sustained.

The same “clear and convincing” standard of proof applies to allegations of dishonesty under GOM
3.00.015(1)(a). I believe there is clear and convincing evidence that you were dishonest in this
investigation. Even if you were not responsible for altering your vaccination card, it is impossible for
me to believe, based on the evidence in this investigation, that you were completely unaware that
your card was altered and used improperly during Ms. Eskildsen’s visit. The evidence reflects your
awareness that Ms. Eskildsen did not have her vaccination card with her during her December 2021
visit, and that you knew she would need proof of vaccination at the Space Needle. I do not believe
your assertions that you never discussed her vaccination status, or whether she had a vaccination
card, when you admit that you gave her your phone in the Uber to specifically show her your
vaccination card and talk about how Washington State handles proof of vaccination. I also do not find
credible your statement that she must have altered your vaccination card on your phone and sent it to
herself while sitting next to you in the Uber without you noticing. To make your story work, I would
also need to believe that there was a delay of several minutes between when the vaccination card
picture was texted from your phone to when it was received on her phone. The uncontroverted
evidence in the record consistently points to your awareness of and involvement with facilitating your
vaccination card being altered and provided to Ms. Eskildsen for her use while she visited you.
Despite multiple opportunities during the investigation to provide evidence that would support your
narrative you could not, or would not, do so. You were also given multiple opportunities to provide
an honest explanation about your awareness that Ms. Eskildsen was without proof of vaccination
status on her visit, and how she came to possess your altered vaccination card. You chose not to do
so.

You spent the majority of your first Loudermill meeting, on January 3, 2023, attempting to discredit
Ms. Eskildsen instead of taking responsibility for the more serious allegations in this investigation.
My conclusion on the dishonesty allegation is not based on Ms. Eskildsen’s credibility, or her
statements to IIU. It is based on your own contradictory statements, implausible and strained
alternative explanations for the events at issue, and the uncontroverted evidence compiled in this
thorough investigatory process.

In the second Loudermill meeting on February 17, 2023, we gave you another opportunity to address
additional discrepancies between your statements and the evidence, including specific videos you
provided to IIU for IIU2022-302. You expressed regret and admitted to several mistakes and lies that
occurred both on and off-duty during your relationship with Ms. Eskildsen, and in the subsequent
investigation. Despite your new efforts to “come clean” and be honest with yourself and others, you
did not provide a credible explanation for the primary issue underlying the dishonesty allegation: how
Ms. Eskildsen came into possession of your altered vaccination card. I believe clear and convincing
evidence shows that you have been dishonest throughout this investigation. The dishonesty allegation
is Sustained.
Timing of Decision

At the February 17, 2023 Loudermill meeting, you suggested that your behavior could be related to a
medical condition, and you went out on protected leave on February 28, 2023. We delayed the
issuance of this decision to engage with your medical provider, Mr. Boren, to address whether there
is a causal connection between the actions that form the basis for your proposed discipline and a
medical condition.

On March 31, 2023, we sent a medical questionnaire to you requesting specific information from
your provider, Mr. Boren, by April 14th as to whether there was a causal connection between your
actions and your medical conditions. Mr. Boren responded on April 13 th stating he had just received
the medical questionnaire from you and would need additional time. We granted an extension
through April 21st.

On April 21st, Mr. Boren contacted Disability Services and stated that you were scheduled for an
appointment on May 10th and that he would have the results in time to provide a completed medical
questionnaire by May 26th. At that time your protected leave was set to expire on May 30 th, so
Disability Services responded on April 21st asking that the provider submit responses by May 19 th so
that we would have time to review them prior to the exhaustion of your protected leave.

On May 19th, your provider returned the questionnaire but indicated that he did not have enough
information to answer questions related to any causal connection between your behavior and your
medical conditions. Disability Services followed-up with your provider on May 19 th, May 23rd, and
June 1st, seeking a completed medical questionnaire. Because Mr. Boren originally indicated he
would have the necessary information to meaningfully respond to the medical questionnaire by May
26th, and because your leave was set to expire on May 30 th, we expected to hear from Mr. Boren in
that timeframe.

On May 18th, 2023 you requested an unprotected leave extension through July 1 st. As your protected
leave expired on May 30th, and this decision has been pending since February, I chose to extend your
leave through June 14th. KCSO Human Resources communicated to you via email on May 25 th that if
we did not receive a substantive response from your provider prior to June 14 th, we would move
forward with this disciplinary decision with the information we already have. Additionally, we
reached out to you directly on June 8th, giving you notice that we still had not received the requested
information from your provider.

On June 13th, your provider sent an email to Disability Services in which he discussed the need for
additional treatment in order to offer an opinion about your future behavior. Mr. Boren’s email does
not answer the questions posed in the medical questionnaire or offer an opinion as to whether he
believes there is a causal connection between the medical conditions he has identified and the
behavior leading to your discipline. Without a medical opinion supporting your suggestion that your
medical conditions contributed to your behavior, we now need to reach a final disciplinary decision
in this matter.
Discipline

On the sustained findings, I am imposing the following discipline:

- GOM 3.00.020.1(d): PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: ACTS IN VIOLATION:

One day suspension (8 hours)
- GOM 3.00.015(2)(K) RULES OF CONDUCT: MISCONDUCT: Conduct Unbecoming:
Five-day suspension (40 hours)
- GOM 3.00.015(1)(a) RULES OF CONDUCT: SERIOUS MISCONDUCT: Dishonesty:
Termination

My discipline decision is based on our inability to trust you as a KCSO employee. This was a very
difficult decision. I commend you for taking action in your personal life to change your behavior and
get the treatment you need. However, you are well aware of this Office’s commitment to honesty and
integrity, and I cannot ignore the facts that clearly indicate you made false statements prior to, and
during, this investigation. There has been an irreparable breach of trust and I can no longer have you
serve in any capacity at the King County Sheriff’s Office. After careful consideration, I concur with
the recommended discipline and will impose Termination of employment effective today, June 14,
2023. Human Resources will be contacting you to provide additional information and answer any
questions you have in closing out your employment with KCSO.

Sincerely,

Patricia Cole-Tindall
SHERIFF

cc: IIU File

Undersheriff Anderson
Chief Marenco
Devon Shannon, Legal Advisor
Jessica Klein, HR Manager
Janet Parks, KCSO ELRR
OLEO