1

PROCEEDINGS CONVENED PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 6

In re Oxford County Commissioners Complaint

Advisory Decision on Complaint for Removal

The Maine Constitution Art. IX, § 10 confers upon the Governor the
authority to consider the removal of an elected sheriff “upon complaint, due
notice and hearing” if the sheriff is found to be “not faithfully or efDiciently
performing any duty imposed upon the sheriff by law”1

The duties imposed upon the sheriff by law are very generally outlined in
30-A M.R.S. § 401(1) as follows:

1. Sheriff's duties. The sheriff shall act as the chief county law
enforcement ofDicer and is responsible for administering and directing
the sheriff's department as authorized by the county budget. The sheriff
shall inform the county commissioners of sheriff's department activities
on a regular basis.

1The full text of Maine Constitution, Article 9, § 10: Tenure of sheriffs; Removal of sheriffs from of>ice
and replacement, states:

Sheriffs shall be elected by the people of their respective counties, by a plurality of the votes
given in on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, and shall hold their offices
for 4 years from the first day of January next after their election, unless sooner removed as
hereinafter provided.

Whenever the Governor upon complaint, due notice and hearing shall find that a sheriff is
not faithfully or efficiently performing any duty imposed upon the sheriff by law, the
Governor may remove such sheriff from office and appoint another sheriff to serve for the
remainder of the term for which such removed sheriff was elected. All vacancies in the office
of sheriff, other than those caused by removal in the manner aforesaid shall be filled in the
same manner as is provided in the case of judges and registers of probate.

Article 9, § 10 was originally added to the Maine Constitution in 1917. Section 10 has been
amended several times over the years, most significantly in 1977, after abolition of the Executive
Council, to remove the Executive Council from a role in the review of any complaint.
 2

To support implementation of Art. 9, § 10, removal of a sheriff by the

Governor is also addressed in 30-A M.R.S. § 441, which, like Maine’s
Constitution, authorizes county commissioners to submit complaints to the
Governor to request the removal of a sheriff from ofDice.

§441. Removal of sheriff

Whenever the county commissioners Dind that the sheriff is not
faithfully or efDiciently performing any duty imposed by this chapter or
that the sheriff is improperly exercising or acting outside the sheriff's
authority, the commissioners may Dile a complaint with the Governor
describing in detail the facts of those actions or omissions and requesting
the Governor to remove the sheriff from ofDice and appoint another
sheriff in that ofDice for the remainder of the term.

Process for Removal of a Sheriff

Process for the Governor to consider any complaint for removal of a

sheriff has been addressed by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court only once.
Opinion of the Justices, 125 Me. 529, 133 A. 265 (1926). There, the Court advised
that: “The language of the amendment clearly implies proceedings judicial in
their form and character, in that there is a ‘complaint,’ ‘due notice and hearing’
and a finding.” Id., 133 A. 267. The 1926 opinion further states that “After a
finding of unfaithfulness or inefficiency, the amendment in absolute terms says:
‘The Governor may remove such sheriff from office.’” Id., 133 A. at 269.

For “proceedings judicial in their form and character”, the process that is
due, requires: “notice of the issues, an opportunity to be heard, the right to
introduce evidence and present witnesses, the right to respond to claims and
evidence, and an impartial fact-Dinder.” Jusseaume v. Ducatt, 2011 ME 43, ¶ 12,
15 A.3d 714; In re Chelsea C., 2005 ME 105, ¶ 16, 884 A.2d 97. See also U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, § 1; Me. Const. art. I, § 6-A; Narowetz v. Board of Dental Practice,
2021 ME 46, ¶¶ 17-34, 259 A.3d 771 (suggesting that in employment or
professional license review matters affecting an individual’s livelihood, more
rigorous standards of due process may be applied: “The due process clauses of
the Maine and federal Constitutions guarantee due process before a
government entity deprives any person of a property right.”).
 3

Standards for Removal of an Incumbent Sheriff

In “proceedings judicial in their form and character” the standards to
establish facts that must be found for removal of an incumbent Sheriff from
ofDice must be sufDiciently speciDic or quantitative that decision-making is based
on factors that are articulable and measurable and not simply left to the
personal preference of the decision-maker. Town of Baldwin v. Carter, 2002 ME
52, 794 A.2d 62; Kosalka v. Town of Georgetown, 2000 ME 106, 752 A.2d 183.
See also Lippit v. Bd. of CertiHication for Geologists and Soil Scientists, 2014 ME
42, ¶¶ 20-22, 88 A.3d 154, holding that a professional disciplinary board’s view
that one’s professional judgment was not “reasonable,” could not support a
Dinding of an ethical violation and imposition of professional discipline absent
(i) gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct, addressed by statute in
Lippit, or (ii) a “false statement” or “false information,” or acting on insufDicient
information, addressed by rule in Lippit.
To remove an incumbent sheriff from ofDice, Art. 9, § 10 directs that a
Governor must Dind that the sheriff was “not faithfully or efDiciently performing
any duty imposed upon the sheriff by law.” While these terms – similar in nature
to the oaths of ofDice that many public ofDicials take to “faithfully and efDiciently
perform the duties imposed upon the ofDicial by law” - seem fairly general, their
application is guided by a considerable body of law and ethics experience. That
experience demonstrates that, absent commission of a crime, false swearing, or
intentional violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, rarely is a single
misstep in the performance of one’s duties, or a single instance of bad judgment,
alone a sufDicient basis to terminate a person from a position. Perhaps a
warning in a personnel record, perhaps some form of discipline, but rarely
termination.
That standard is particularly important for persons engaged in law
enforcement. Law enforcement professionals must regularly make
discretionary, sometimes split-second decisions, sometimes in dangerous, even
life-threatening situations. And any choice can lead to criticism, including calls
for discipline or termination if, based on later review, with knowledge of more
facts, the initial discretionary decision is viewed by some as not the decision
that should have been made.
The Oxford County Commissioners’ Complaint
Invoking Art. 9, § 10, and 30-A M.R.S. § 441, on February 7, 2024 the
Oxford County Board of Commissioners Diled a complaint with the Governor
seeking the removal of Oxford County Sheriff Christopher Wainwright. The
 4

Commissioners’ complaint asserted that Sheriff Wainwright “improperly

exercised and acted outside of his authority, and that he has failed to faithfully
or efDiciently perform duties imposed on him by law.”
In support of the complaint and request for removal of Sheriff
Wainwright, the Commissioners referenced three separate instances of alleged
improper activities by Sheriff Wainwright that they believed justiDied his
removal from ofDice. In the order listed by the Commissioners, those instances
of alleged misconduct, brieDly summarized, were:
First, in September 2022, the Sheriff had learned that one of his Deputies
had issued a ticket to a woman for consuming alcohol from an open container
while operating a motor vehicle on a public way. On November 4, 2022, while
the Deputy was on duty, the Sheriff had approached the Deputy and made a
request that the Deputy construed as asking the Deputy to either seek leniency
or dismiss the ticket. The Deputy “was upset and shaken by the Sheriff’s
request,” and complained to his fellow ofDicers. The verbal complaint went up
the chain of command, ultimately being reported to the Chief Deputy, the
weekend before the November 8, 2022 election, where a Lieutenant in his ofDice
was running against Sheriff Wainwright for Oxford County Sheriff.
When Sheriff Wainwright learned of these communications, the Sheriff
contacted the Deputy who had written the ticket, and another Deputy who had
learned of the issuing Deputy’s concern, and engaged in angry conversations
claiming, among other things, that he, as Sheriff, had the authority to shred or
dismiss tickets issued by his deputies if he chose to do so. The Sheriff’s initial
request to the Deputy for leniency, and the subsequent conversations, in
combination, are the basis for this Dirst instance of misconduct alleged in the
complaint to the Governor.
Second, in June and September 2021, Sheriff Wainwright had engaged
with an Auburn Direarms dealer, JT Reid, to trade in Direarms in the Oxford
County Sheriff’s evidence locker, Direarms that had been in the DixDield Police
Department’s evidence locker, and service Direarms from the DixDield Police
Department, following DixDield’s contract with Oxford County assume law
enforcement responsibility in DixDield. In return for these trade ins, the
Sheriff’s Department had received credits that were then used to purchase new
service weapons for the Sheriff’s Department.
In 2023 the County Commissioners initiated an investigation of these
trade ins and acquisitions. The investigation, conducted by an attorney hired
by the Commissioners, suggested that the trade ins of Direarms in return for
 5

credits violated State laws and Oxford County regulations regarding disposal of
Direarms. As the Direarms trade in investigation was on going, the
Commissioners’ complaint also alleges that the Sheriff improperly disposed of
some surplus exercise equipment in violation of regulations for disposal of
County property. These allegations of improper disposition of Direarms and
other property are the basis for the second instance of misconduct alleged in
the complaint to the Governor.
Third, in 2018, the prior Oxford County Sheriff had hired two recently
retired Maine State Police Troopers to be part-time Deputies, serving as School
Resource OfDicers (SROs), for two School Administrative Districts. To be hired
as part-time Deputies and SROs the retired Troopers had to be properly
certiDied with the Maine Criminal Justice Academy (MCJA). At the time of hire,
the Sheriff’s Department was required to Dile “Notices of Hire” with the MCJA.
In 2021, as a result of changes in State law for what counts as a “part-time”
ofDicer, the Sheriff was required to recertify the SROs as full-time ofDicers and
did so, with new Dilings with the MCJA.
In 2023, it was discovered that the MCJA did not have in its Diles the
requisite Notices of Hire that should have been Diled in 2018, and that
documentation of the SROs’ compliance with training requirements was also
deDicient. These paperwork deDiciencies rendered the 2018 certiDication and
the 2021 recertiDication of the SROs invalid meaning that the ofDicers could not
serve as SROs, and calling into question the Oxford County’s compliance with
contracts with the school districts requiring that SROs be properly certiDied
ofDicers. Within four months after discovery of the paperwork deDiciencies,
Sheriff Wainwright acted to correct those deDiciencies and secure proper
certiDication of the SROs, one of whom has not retired from that position. The
paperwork deDiciencies, and the fact that the two retired ofDicers were allowed
to serve as SROs with deDicient documentation to support their certiDication is
the basis for the third instance of misconduct alleged in the complaint to the
Governor.
The Governor’s Executive Order
On February 9, 2024, Governor Mills issued Executive Order 6 FY 23/24
establishing the process for hearing the Oxford County Commissioners’
Complaint for removal of Sheriff Wainwright. Donald G. Alexander was
appointed to serve as Hearing OfDicer.
The Executive Order directed the Hearing OfDicer to confer with the
parties regarding the future course of proceedings, issue a procedural order
 6

governing the hearing process, hold a hearing to receive evidence relevant to

the complaint, and allow pre- and post-hearing written submissions.
Recognizing the important rights at stake, the Governor directed that “[t]he
hearing process shall provide appropriate protection to the rights and interests
of the parties for a proceeding that may result in the removal of a popularly-
elected sheriff.”
The Executive Order also stated that: “[t]he Hearing Officer shall provide
a written report to the Governor and make any recommendation he deems
appropriate based on the evidence presented. The Hearing Officer’s
recommendation is purely advisory, and the Governor retains final decision-
making authority, consistent with Me. Const. Art. IX, § 10.”

The Hearing and Development of the Record for Decision

An evidentiary hearing was held on the County Commissioners’

Complaint on April 22 and 24, 2024. On April 29, post-hearing arguments were
filed by the Attorney for the Oxford County Commissioners and by the Attorney
for Sheriff Wainwright. With those filings, the matter is now ready for decision.

Prior to the hearing, counsel for each party worked collaboratively with
the Hearing Officer and representatives of the Governors Office to establish
procedures, schedule the hearing, and work toward achieving a final resolution
in this matter. Counsel for the Oxford County Commissioners, Attorney Amy
Dieterich, and Counsel for Sheriff Wainwright, Attorney Jonathan Berry are
commended for their hard work over the past two months to develop a great
number of agreed stipulations of facts, identify exhibits that have been
admitted by stipulation or agreement, and identify witnesses to be called and
exhibits to be offered to best present their respective cases on points where
there is disagreement.

For this adjudicatory proceeding, the Hearing Officer advised that the
rules and practices governing admission of evidence in administrative fact-
finding proceedings would apply. Evidence is generally admissible in such a
proceeding if “it is the kind of evidence upon which reasonable persons are
accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs.” 5 M.R.S. § 9057(2). See
Abrahamson v. Sec’y of State, 584 A.2d 668, 670 (Me. 1991). Adjudicatory
decisionmakers may make discretionary decisions to admit or exclude
evidence based on other factors—relevance, repetitiveness, unduly time
 7

consuming—similar to standards used by trial judges. See M.R. Evid. 401, 402,
403 & 611.

The evidentiary standard is not high. But rumors, hopes and third-party
hearsay may not meet even this basic standard. See Hannum v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot.,
2003 ME 123, ¶ 15 n.6, 832 A.2d at 769-70; Heal v. Me. Employment Sec. Comm’n,
447 A.2d 1223, 1226 (Me. 1982). Proper evidence, even in an administrative
hearing, must have some “assurance of reliability.” Id.; see also State v. James,
2002 ME 86, ¶¶ 13-15, 797 A.2d 732 (addressing, generally, evidence reliability
in relation to due process requirements in a probation revocation case where
the rules of evidence do not apply).
In this Decision, the stipulations agreed to by the parties are accepted as
facts and are identiDied by the roman numerals I – XXIX as in the joint Diling of
the parties on April 8, 2024. The other Dindings, based on the record of the
hearing, are numbered separately, with Dindings related to Background History
beginning with # 101, Dindings related to The Sheriff’s Request For Leniency
beginning with # 201, Dindings related to Firearms Trade Ins beginning with
# 301, and Dindings related to CertiDication Status of Two School Resource
OfDicers beginning with # 401. Conclusions reached in this decision are
addressed following the Dindings.

Background History

I. The Office of Sheriff is a constitutional office, in the State of Maine. Art. IX,
Sec. 10; see also 30-A M.R.S.A. §§ 371-B and 401. Christopher Wainwright is the
duly elected Sheriff and chief executive law enforcement officer, within the
jurisdictional boundaries of Oxford County (hereinafter “Sheriff Wainwright”).

II. The Board of County Commissioners, for Oxford County, is represented

by three (3) individuals who are elected by three (3) separate districts of the
County of Oxford, State of Maine (hereinafter “the Board”).

III. In January, 2019, Sheriff Wainwright took the Oath of Office, as the
elected Sheriff of Oxford County.

IV. In November 2022, Sheriff Wainwright successfully ran for and was
elected to a second 4-year term, as Sheriff of Oxford County.
 8

101. Sheriff Wainwright’s opponent in the November 8, 2022 election was a

Lieutenant in the Oxford County Sheriff’s Office. That election contest resulted
in some understandable tension within the Sheriff’s Office, with personnel
tending to view some difficult or discretionary decisions made by the Sheriff or
his opponent favorably or unfavorably based on who they favored in the
upcoming election.

V. In January 2023, Sheriff Wainwright again took the Oath of Office, as the
elected Sheriff of Oxford County and continues to serve in that role through the
date of these Stipulations.

VI. Pursuant to Title 30-A of the Maine Revised Statutes, Subchapter 6, the
Sheriff’s duties include, but are not limited, to law enforcement, jail
administration and court services.

VII. With respect to county law enforcement administration, the roles and
responsibilities of Sheriff’s and county commissioners are articulated in Title
30-A, sec. 401, of the Maine Revised Statutes.

VIII. The Law Enforcement Code of Ethics is incorporated into the Oxford
County Sheriff Department’s Professional Responsibilities Policy # 1-2.

IX. In 2021, the Oxford County Sheriff’s Department had a

Property/Evidence Control policy (effective 2/10/19), that provides, in
relevant part:
Firearms and ammunition shall be disposed of in a manner
described in Title 25 M.R.S.A Section 3503-A. (Appendix C). If the
ownership of the weapon is transferred to the agency [by] court
order or by the veriDied owner, the Sheriff or designee shall
determine the Dinal disposition of the item(s).

X. In 2021, Oxford County had a Purchasing and Bidding Policy that does
not speak directly to firearms or property seized as evidence.

102. The record keeping and paperwork problems that contributed to the
issues relating to (a) identifying any owner and the means of Oxford County
acquisition of firearms in the evidence locker; (b) determining past practices
and proper practices for disposition of firearms from the evidence locker; and
 9

(c) properly certifying and documenting certification status of Deputies

assigned as School Resource Officers, preceded Sheriff Wainwright’s tenure as
Sheriff of Oxford County.

The Sheriff’s Request For Leniency

XI. On August 20, 2022, a ticket was issued by Oxford County Deputy Tyler
Fournier to [DE]2 for consuming alcohol in a motor vehicle on a public way. See
State of Maine v. D. E, Case No. 4129801.

XII. On November 4, 2022, Oxford County Deputy Tyler Fournier was

working at a Dirigo High School football game in Dixfield.

XIII. At the football game on November 4, 2022, the Sheriff approached

Deputy Fournier saying he had a case he wanted to talk about involving a ticket
that Deputy Fournier had issued to DE. During this conversation, the Sheriff
asked Deputy Fournier to seek leniency with DE if and when the matter went
to Court.

XIV. On November 7, 2022, the Sheriff texted Deputy Maccione at 10:40 a.m.
requesting a call. They spoke shortly thereafter. Deputy Maccione recorded the
call. Joint Exhibit 1.

XV. The Sheriff texted Deputy Fournier at 11:12 a.m. requesting a call. They
spoke shortly thereafter. Deputy Fournier recorded the call. Joint Exhibit 2.

201. Sheriff Wainwright was socially acquainted with DE because she had
attended high school with Sheriff Wainwright’s older brother.

202. Sheriff Wainwright was aware that DE’s sister suffered from stage 4 cancer
and had attended a beneDit event for DE’s sister on or about September 24,
2022.

203. At that beneDit event, Sheriff Wainwright learned that DE had received the
ticket from Deputy Fournier, and that DE’s sister was in the vehicle with DE, and
celebrating, including drinking, with DE after an enjoyable outing.
2
To protect the individual’s privacy, the individual ticketed is not being named in this decision. The letters
DE are used in place of the individual’s name.
 10

204. At the beneDit event, Sheriff Wainwright indicated to DE that he would look
into the ticket issued to her by Deputy Fournier.

205. Sheriff Wainwright saw DE at the November 4, 2022 football game. DE

stated “Don’t forget I got that ticket” to Sheriff Wainwright.

206. After seeing DE at the football game, and as indicated in Stipulation XIII,
Sheriff Wainwright approached Deputy Fournier. In their conversation, Sheriff
Wainwright brought up the ticket to Deputy Fournier and asked “Can you make
it right?”

207. While Sheriff Wainwright’s request contained no threat to Deputy

Fournier, Deputy Fournier subjectively felt intimidated by Sheriff Wainwright’s
request because of the Sheriff’s authority over Mr. Fournier as a junior deputy.
SpeciDically, Deputy Fournier testiDied that the Sheriff’s request, “wasn’t sitting
well with me,” and he felt his “job was at risk.” He also thought that getting a
request from the Sheriff directly was outside the usual chain of command.

208. Deputy Fournier spoke with Deputy Maccione, his partner on the shift on
the evening of November 4, 2022, following his conversation with Sheriff
Wainwright regarding the Sheriff’s request.

209. Deputies Fournier and Maccione thought that Sheriff Wainwright’s

request of Deputy Fournier to exercise leniency regarding DE might be
unethical or illegal.

210. Deputy Fournier believed that he was being placed in an “impossible

position” by Sheriff Wainwright whereby Deputy Fournier “either had to
participate in what he believed was illegal and unethical conduct, which could
compromise him, or to refuse to do so, which could put him at risk of
retaliation.”

211. Deputies Fournier and Maccione reported this suspected misconduct

through the Department’s chain of command to their supervisor Sgt. Timothy
Ontengco.
 11

212. Upon receipt of these reports, Sgt. Ontengco relayed them to his own
superior, Chief Deputy James Urquehart, Dirst via text message on November 5,
2022 and then by departmental email on November 5, 2022.

213. Chief Urquehart spoke to Sheriff Wainwright regarding the matter on the
evening of November 6, 2022, and Chief Urquehart forwarded Sgt. Ontencgo’s
email to the Sheriff on the morning of November 7, 2022.

214. Sheriff Wainwright initiated calls with Deputies Maccione and Fournier
shortly after learning of Sgt. Ontengco’s email, which both Deputies recorded.
In the calls, Sheriff Wainwright cursed and spoke in an aggressive manner,
making his displeasure with them having reported the matter up the chain of
command. For the recordings and transcripts of the calls, see Stipulated Facts
XIV; XV; Joint Ex. 1, 1B; Joint Ex. 2, 2B.

215. In those calls, Sheriff Wainwright appeared to overstate his own authority
by saying he could shred any tickets he wanted, that the deputies worked at his
discretion and that he has “no boss”. The statements of authority by Sheriff
Wainwright to shred recently written tickets would not have applied to the
ticket written approximately ten weeks earlier by Deputy Fournier, as it would
have been Diled in and be pending in the Court system.

216. Sheriff Wainwright has admitted that the statements referenced in

Dindings 214 and 215 were inappropriate and not proper conduct for a person
in his position discussing the matter with subordinates. He concedes that these
statements were an error of judgment for which he has accepted responsibility.

217. Sheriff Wainwright hoped to encourage Deputy Fournier to exercise

leniency on DE’s ticket in Fournier’s ofDicial function if and when the matter
went to court for hearing.

218. Sheriff Wainwright, by virtue of his ofDice, was required to swear or afDirm
the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics to be qualiDied to serve in his role, which
states in part “I will never …. permit … friendships to inDluence my decisions. …
I will enforce the law … without fear or favor.” 30-A M.R.S. § 371-B(3)(A).

219. There is no evidence that DE or her sister were anything more than an
acquaintance of Sheriff Wainwright’s, a status likely common among many in
Oxford County. After an investigation, the County Commissioners later
 12

determined that: “There is no evidence of any special relationship between the

Sheriff and either of the two women.”

220. There is no evidence that DE had any prior record of motor vehicle
offenses or criminal offenses that might have deterred an individual in the law
enforcement and justice system from seeking a reduced charge or alternative
disposition resolution of the charge pending against DE.

The Firearms Trade Ins

XVI. Under Sheriff Wainwright’s direction, the Oxford County Sheriff’s

Department traded firearms and firearm parts with JT Reid in 2020 and 2021,
but the pending Complaint only relates to the firearms traded in 2021.

XVII. Sheriff Wainwright organized and directed trades of firearms that the
Oxford County Sheriff’s Department took custody and control of from the
Dixfield Police Department (DPD), following Oxford County Sheriff’s
Department’s absorption of the DPD, and Department evidence in June and
September 2021.

XVIII. Sheriff Wainwright selected JT Reid for these trades.

XIX. Sheriff Wainwright thought JT Reid provided the best deal for the County
in terms of the value of the trade as well as ease.

XX. Sheriff Wainwright did not search for other federally-licensed gun
dealers in Maine before selecting JT Reid for the firearms in evidence trade,
though he had discussions with some out of state dealers concerning trading
agency-issued weapons.

XXI. Sheriff Wainwright did not conduct an auction to sell the firearms in
2021.

XXII. Sheriff Wainwright invited no firearms dealers other than JT Reid to bid
on the firearms from evidence.

XXIII. The Oxford County Board of Commissioners did not file a complaint with
the Maine Criminal Justice Academy against Sheriff Wainwright as a result of
his trade in firearms from the Oxford County evidence room.
 13

301. Neither Sheriff Wainwright, nor any other private individual, received any
beneDits from the Direarms trade in transactions. All beneDits of the transactions
went to the Oxford County Sheriff’s OfDice and Oxford County in the form of new
service weapons, acquired at less total cost than otherwise would have been
required in a request for bids and purchase arrangement.

302. In the past, Oxford County had used varying practices to dispose of
Direarms, both service weapons and Direarms in the evidence locker. For
example, around the year 2000, there had been a “silent auction” that had
involved approximately seven Direarms dealers. It is not apparent whether that
auction was with all Direarms dealers on site at the same time, or the dealers
submitting written bids for individual Direarms. The reference to “silent
auction” suggests it was conducted by submitting written bids.

303. Under three prior Sheriffs, Sheriff Wainwright was aware of or had
participated in Direarms trade in transactions to acquire new Direarms for the
Sheriff’s Department. He had also participated in destruction of illegal or
altered Direarms.

304. On June 13, 2019, the Oxford County Administrator circulated an email to
the Sheriff and others generally addressing practices for distribution or
disposal of surplus property. That email made no particular reference to
disposal of Direarms. Among other points, the email observed: “Experience with
auctions, . . . , is that the money received is not worth the time.”

305. On March 17, 2020, the County Commissioners authorized Sheriff

Wainwright to “purchase 30 weapon units up to $27,000, less trade-ins
allowance, from the equipment line [the Departments service weapons] with
funds being transferred from the drug account to cover the cost.”

306. The County Commissioners’ meeting minutes, dated March 17, 2020,
contemplated future Direarms “trade-in” activity, by the Sheriff or his designee.
Sheriff Wainwright construed this “trade-in” authorization to apply to disposal
of any Direarm within the custody or control of the Sheriff’s Department, as long
as the trade-in supported acquisition of new weapons at reduced cost that
would become the property of Oxford County and the Sheriff’s Department.
The County Commissioners viewed this “trade-in” authorization to apply only
to disposal of service weapons used by Oxford County Sheriff’s OfDicers.
 14

307. Past practices of Oxford County and the Oxford County Sheriff’s OfDice,
Oxford County policies, reported practices of other law enforcement agencies,
testimony by a Direarms dealer, and discussions with one or more investigators
with the OfDice of the Maine Attorney General indicate that Sheriff Wainwright’s
understanding that “trade-in” activity, related to the acquisition of new
weapons systems, was not unreasonable.

308. In 2021 the evidence room was full, and organization of the room was
subject to extra pressure because the Sheriff’s OfDice, in January 2021, was
taking on service weapons and evidence room Direarms from the DixDield Police
Department (DPD) as a result of the Sheriff’s OfDice assuming responsibility for
law enforcement in the Town of DixDield.

309. An Oxford County Detective spent a day researching the Direarms evidence
received from the DPD. The Detective reported: “Most did not have an evidence
tag. I attempted to Dind [court] cases the Direarms were attached to but only a
few seemed to have been attached to cases, the remaining were never entered
into the system.”

310. At a time uncertain after he became Sheriff, Sheriff Wainwright had

consulted with and received evaluation of the prospects for the sale of Direarms
from several Direarms dealers, then decided to engage in trade in transactions
with Direarms dealer JT Reid. The Sheriff determined that the Dinancial
arrangements offered by JT Reid would provide the best value for the County.

311. The trade in transactions with JT Reid in June and September 2021 – the
only transactions at issue - resulted in a line of credit to be used to purchase
Direarms for the Sheriff’s Department. Joint Exhibit 12 indicates that 18
Direarms were traded from the Oxford County evidence locker in June 2021, and
22 Direarms, all from the DPD evidence locker, were traded in September 2021.

312. The Department’s evidence room contains Direarms some of which may
have been used as evidence in a criminal case, and others had been forfeited to
the County or turned over to the County. Sheriff Wainwright directed Detective
and Evidence Room Custodian Michael Halacy to (a) create two lists of Direarms
using certain criteria in preparation for the trades with JT Reid in 2021; (b)
include in his Direarms trade list Direarms and parts from the DPD evidence
locker and certain Direarms from Sheriff’s Department evidence locker; and (c)
 15

check the federal database to ensure none of the weapons that Wainwright
planned to trade with JT Reid were reported as stolen.

313. The records of the regarding the source and status of the Direarms in the
Sheriff’s Department evidence locker were very limited. Very few of the
Direarms traded from the evidence locker to JT Reid had a tag or record in the
Department’s system indicating they had been forfeited.

314. There was no attempt to identify or contact owners of the Direarms prior
to trading them with JT Reid or to check the status of any criminal cases that
may have been associated with the Direarms. It was believed that many of the
owners, or former owners, of the Direarms in the evidence locker had been
persons prohibited from possession of Direarms. That belief may not have been
correct, according to a subsequent review, but acting on that belief at the time
of the JT Reid trade was not unreasonable. There was no evidence presented
that any person claiming entitlement to an evidence locker Direarm had since
come forward seeking recovery of that Direarm.

315. Sheriff Wainwright had a plan to triage the Direarms and parts in the DPD
evidence locker, such that he would wait a year to see if any owners surfaced
after the County took over the DPD before he traded them. However, both sales
to JT Reid occurred less than one year after the Oxford County Sheriff’s
Department took possession of Direarms that were in the DixDield Police
Department evidence room.

316. None of the Direarms that were traded to JT Reid in 2021 had been used in
suicides according to the County’s record system.

317. At the time of the relevant transactions with JT Reid, the Department had
adopted a Property/Evidence Control Policy (the “PECP”) that was made
effective on February 10, 2019 under Sheriff Wainwright’s direction. The stated
purpose of the PECP was to:

establish a management system for the safe, legal and efficient

collection, storage, management and destruction of legally seized
property. All agency members shall maintain strict accountability
for all property held for safekeeping and evidence. These policies,
procedures and guidelines are not intended nor shall they be
 16

construed to supersede any Federal or State Statute(s). This policy

is intended to comply with both Federal and State statutes.

The PECP stated as to unclaimed property generally that “[a]ny

property/evidence unless prohibited by court order, shall be disposed of
according to Title 25 M.R.S.A. [Chapter] 401. The PECP stated speciDically as to
Direarms and ammunition that such “shall be disposed of in a manner described
in Title 25 M.R.S.A. Section 3503-A.”

318. In 2023, surplus gym equipment under the Sheriff’s control was disposed
of either the same day, or the day after, the Sheriff received an email, Joint
Exhibit 25, indicating that the Sheriff should not dispose of the gym equipment.
It is unclear whether the gym equipment was disposed of before or after the
email was received. There is insufDicient evidence to draw any conclusions
about this transaction.

319. Title 25, Chapter 401 sets out statutory requirements for the disposal of
unclaimed, lost or stolen personal property by a law enforcement agency. 25
M.R.S. § 3501 states that Chapter 401:

applies to all personal property of which possession is transferred

to a police department or other law enforcement agency of the
State or any political subdivision thereof, under circumstances
supporting a reasonable belief that such property was abandoned,
lost or stolen, or otherwise illegally possessed, except property
seized during search and retained and ultimately returned,
destroyed or otherwise disposed of pursuant to a court order or
some other law applicable to specific property or circumstance.
This chapter applies to personal property seized during search and
retained that is not offered or admitted as evidence and that, after
retention by a police department or other law enforcement agency,
becomes abandoned. This chapter does not apply to unclaimed
personal property that has been confiscated at courthouses by
judicial marshals. Such property that remains unclaimed for more
than 30 days may be disposed of under the direction of the State
Court Administrator.

Chapter 401 generally requires law enforcement agencies to:

 17

make reasonable inquiry and efforts to identify and notify the

owner or other person entitled to possession of the property and
shall return the property after such person provides reasonable
and satisfactory proof of that person's ownership or right to
possession and reimburses the agency and others authorized to
incur expenses by the agency for all reasonable expenses of such
custody. If the owner of such property or any other person entitled
to possession of the property has not been identiDied after at least
30 days from the initial date of custody of such property by a law
enforcement agency, the principal ofDicial of such agency shall
cause to be published, at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the county in which such ofDicial has authority or in a
newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the
property was taken into custody in the case of a state law
enforcement agency, a notice of the law enforcement agency's
possession of such property and its inability to ascertain the owner
of the property.

25 M.R.S. § 3502.

Section 3503-A of Title 25 states that:

Notwithstanding any other provision of [Chapter 401], a police

department or other law enforcement agency retaining firearms
and ammunition covered by this chapter, Title 15, section 3314 or
chapter 517, or Title 17-A, section 1504 may auction the firearms
to federally licensed firearms dealers or the public, use the firearms
and ammunition for training purposes or destroy the firearms and
ammunition.

320. The District Attorney for Region 3, including Oxford County, reported that
the Oxford County Sheriff’s evidence collection and management practices are
professional and honest.

Certification Status of Two School Resource Officers

XXIV. Pursuant to contracts entered into between two school districts, SAD #55
and RSU #10 in 2020, 2021 and 2022, Oxford County and the Sheriff in his
 18

official capacity, the Sherriff agreed to provide to the Districts Deputy Sheriffs
that were appointed in accordance with 30-A M.R.S. §381.

XXV. The Oxford County Sheriff’s Department entered into contracts with SAD
#55 and RSU #10 to provide Districts Deputy Sheriffs that were appointed in
accordance with 30-A M.R.S. §381 [for] 2018 and 2019 as well, prior to Sheriff
Wainwright taking the oath of office as Sheriff of Oxford County. Copies of those
contracts cannot be located, but none were signed or authorized by Sheriff
Wainwright.

XXVI. Section 381 provides that a sheriff may only appoint deputies if they meet
certain prerequisites, one of which is that they complete certain training
requirements, here under 25 M.R.S. §2804-B. In accordance with this law, the
Maine Criminal Justice Academy set forth certain training and certification
requirements for SROs.

XXVII. Further, Title 25, Chapter 341 sets forth certain record keeping and
reporting requirements for law enforcement agencies. As the “head” of an
agency employing law enforcement and corrections officers, it is the duty of the
Sheriff to maintain accurate and complete records of employment and training
for the law enforcement and corrections officers for Oxford County.

XXVIII. Oxford County Deputies Percy Turner and Michael Kaspereen were
hired as School Resources Officers prior to Sheriff Wainwright taking the oath
of office as Sheriff of Oxford County.

401. The Maine Criminal Justice Academy [MCJA] does not have a record of
receiving “notices of hire” for either of the SROs in 2018 or at any time prior to
discovery of problems with the SRO’s certifications in 2023.
402. The contracts with the School Districts at all relevant times specified that
these deputy sheriffs would be individuals “appointed by [the Sheriff] in
accordance with 30-A M.R.S. § 381, and who [have] executed any necessary
oath which is required by law to serve in the position of a certified law
enforcement deputy sheriff . . . .”.

403. The contracts further specified that the assigned deputies “shall be
certified law enforcement officers by the Maine Criminal Justice Academy, and
 19

shall have completed all applicable training requirements for law enforcement
officers and, specifically, school resource officer training.”.

404. The contracts further specified that the Sheriff “shall have and maintain
the responsibility for and control of the delivery of services, the standards of
performance, the discipline of personnel, and other matters incident to the
performance of services, duties, and responsibilities” as described in those
contracts.

405. The Districts each paid annual sums to the County in consideration for the
Sheriff’s performance of furnishing certified law enforcement officers as SROs.

406. In January 2019, Sheriff Wainwright, as head of the Sheriff’s Department,

inherited the contractual obligations, with SAD 55 and RSU10, as well as the
SROs already in service. Sheriff Wainwright believed that the SROs were
properly certified part-time law enforcement officers. The SRO contracts, with
SAD55 and RSU10, came before the County Commissioners annually for review
and ratification. Prior to 2023 there is no record of expression of concern about
the certification status of the SROs.

407. In 2021, the Maine Legislature enacted Title 20-A, sec. 6556 mandating,
inter alia, that SROs be “law enforcement ofDicers,” i.e. “a person [who
possesses] a current and valid certiDicate issued by the Maine Criminal Justice
Academy.” See 25 M.R.S § 3701(3). 25 M.R.S. § 3701(3) deDines a “law
enforcement ofDicer” as “any person who by virtue of public employment is
vested by law with a duty to make arrests for crimes, whether that duty extends
to all crimes or is limited to speciDic crimes.” Pursuant to 25 M.R.S. § 2804-B(1)
any law enforcement ofDicer is required to be certiDied by the Maine Criminal
Justice Academy (“MCJA”) prior to their service.

408. Annual hours limits for part-time ofDicers adopted in the new legislation
required that the SROs be certiDied as full-time ofDicers.

409. Passage of this legislation prompted Sheriff Wainwright to order an

internal review of the status of all OCSO SROs for compliance with the new law.

410. As a result of this review, the OCSO determined that the SROs status as
part-time law enforcement ofDicers could not be reconciled with the contractual
 20

requirements and statutory limits on the number of hours that part-time law
enforcement ofDicers can perform law enforcement duties annually.
Accordingly, Sheriff Wainwright’s chief deputy initiated the process for the
SROs to recertify as full-time law enforcement ofDicers.

411. Initiation of the recertiDication process for the SROs in 2021 was the result
of the change in the law. That recertiDication process was not the result of
recognition that the original certiDications of the SROs in 2018 and continuing
were invalid because of the paperwork problems and unavailability of the
notices of hire incident to the original certiDications.

412. In April 2022, the MCJA issued a full-time recertiDication package to the
OCSO for SRO Turner, signifying that he had, in fact, recertiDied as a full-time law
enforcement ofDicer.

413. In May 2023, the Sheriff’s OfDice Dirst received information indicating that,
since their time of hire in 2018, neither of the SROs had been properly certiDied
as part- or full-time law enforcement ofDicers.

414. Sheriff Wainwright and the SROs ultimately discovered that, according to
MCJA records, neither of the SROs had been a properly certiDied law
enforcement ofDicer – part-time or otherwise – during their tenure with Oxford
County.

415. The SROs lack of credentials was a result of Oxford County’s apparent
failure to Dile the original notices of hire, required by Maine law, in 2018. Sheriff
Wainwright’s staff searched the limited departmental records that were
available but never located the original ‘notices of hire’ (or copies) for the SROs,
and thus, worked with the MCJA to ascertain what would be required and/ or
acceptable to resolve the absence of the original 2018 ‘notices of hire.’

416. In September 2023, the MCJA reviewed the circumstances of the SROs
initial hire, deployment, lapse in certiDication and recertiDication processes. Id.
After review and consultation, the issue was resolved, no violation of law or
MCJA rules was found, and the MCJA issued a “letters of guidance” suggesting
better tracking of certiDication paperwork and SRO qualiDications.
 21

Advisory Conclusions

The Law Enforcement Code of Ethics within the Standard Operating

Procedures of the Oxford County Sheriff’s Office, stated in full below, provides
an excellent guide by which to examine the legal and ethical obligations of law
enforcement officers, including the Oxford County Sheriff, in performing the
law enforcement and administrative duties of their office. It can aid in
evaluating whether Sheriff Wainwright has violated his duties of office in such
a manner that he was “not faithfully or efficiently performing any duty imposed
upon the sheriff by law”, the Constitutional standard for removal from office
stated in Art. IX, § 10 of the Maine Constitution.

Review of that Law Enforcement Code of Ethics makes it evident that

minor violations of the code may appear to occur when law enforcement
officers, in their work, must make split second discretionary decisions in
situations where they may not have all the necessary information at hand, and
later developed information can make a law enforcement officer’s action, or in
action, look very different. Likewise, in high stress situations law enforcement
officers often face, self-restraint sometimes may be challenging to maintain,
and aggressive statements, as occurred in this case, may occasionally occur. But
every deviation from the Code of Ethics standards in stressful situations need
not result in termination of one’s service in law enforcement. For termination,
a pattern and practice of such violations must be demonstrated.
22
 23

The Sheriff’s Request For Leniency

Analysis of this issue is divided into two parts: First, the issuance of the
ticket and the Sheriff’s request to the Deputy to have the charge reduced or
dismissed; Second the Sheriff’s interactions, a couple days later, with the
Deputy and the Deputy’s partner on duty that evening.

On or about August 20, 2022, a woman was ticketed for consuming

alcohol in a motor vehicle on a public way. Sheriff Wainwright was not aware
of the stop and the ticket.

Approximately a month later, Sheriff Wainwright learned that the

woman’s sister suffered from stage 4 cancer, at benefit event for the sister.
Sheriff Wainwright also learned that the woman had been ticketed and that her
cancer-stricken sister was in the vehicle with the woman celebrating, including
drinking, after an enjoyable outing. Sheriff Wainwright indicated to the woman
that he would look into the ticket issued to her by his Deputy.

Approximately six weeks later, Sheriff Wainwright saw the woman at a

November 4, 2022 football game. She stated “Don’t forget I got that ticket” to
Sheriff Wainwright. After seeing the woman at the football game, and as
indicated in Stipulation XIII, Sheriff Wainwright approached the Deputy who
had issued the ticket. He brought up the ticket to the Deputy and, considering
the woman’s circumstances, asked “Can you make it right?” He asked the
Deputy to seek leniency for the woman if and when the matter went to Court.

As indicated in the findings, the Deputy was concerned that the Sheriff’s
request to him was an unethical and illegal attempt at ticket fixing, and that not
doing as the Sheriff asked could put his Deputy position at risk. He proceeded
to report the conversation into the chain of command, with the Chief Deputy
ultimately learning of it from another Deputy the weekend before the
November 8, 2022 election.

After Sheriff Wainwright learned of these communications, the sharp

conversations described in the findings happened.

Despite the Deputy’s adverse reaction, the Sheriff’s request to the Deputy
seeking leniency is a common and accepted practice in a case (a) where the
 24

person charged had no prior record; (b) where the offense occurred in the
course of the accused person’s assisting her sister to enjoy the moment, despite
the sister’s very difficult circumstances – a diagnosis of terminal cancer; and (c)
where there was no evidence of a close, special relationship between the Sheriff
and the person charged.

Calling the Sheriff’s acts attempts at “ticket fixing” can make the acts
sound bad for those who want to criticize. But ticket fixing is not what occurred
here, referencing an event 10 weeks previously where the case was already
pending in court and likely subject to some control by the District Attorney’s
office, if not a judge.

Communications among law enforcement officers, both up and down the

chain of command, between law enforcement and prosecutors, and between
law enforcement, prosecutors, defendants and the courts are common in cases
of first offenders, and particularly those cases with special, mitigating
circumstances.

Those communications are not “ticket fixing,” and they are not unethical
or illegal. In practice they may be called early diversion or alternative
disposition programs, sometimes practiced within a law enforcement agency
before the matter moves to court, or once the case gets to court practiced in
discussions with police, defendants, and prosecutors with reduced charges or
dismissed charges often the result. Such dispositions are encouraged by
legislative enactments and by court scheduling practices, particularly with
today’s crowded dockets.

Sheriff Wainwright violated no rules of law or ethics is requesting –

requesting not demanding – consideration of such an early diversion or
alternative disposition for a first offender where there were difficult mitigating
circumstances associated with the offense.

The sharp conversations with the charging Deputy and another Deputy a
couple days later are a different matter. The conversations are addressed in
findings 214 and 215. Sheriff Wainwright has admitted that those statements
were inappropriate and not proper conduct for a person in his position
discussing the matter with subordinates. He concedes that they were an error
of judgment for which he has accepted responsibility.
 25

In the Spring of 2023, Sheriff Wright made commitments to try to change

his practices to avoid such exchanges in the future. There is no evidence in the
record of any other such communications by Sheriff Wainwright before or after
the events of November 7, 2022.

Law enforcement is stressful work, managing a law enforcement agency

is stressful work. Sometimes, in in the heat of a moment, swearing and claims
to have more authority than one really has happen. Absent personal violence
or law breaking, such singular moments of bad judgment cannot justify a
termination. A pattern and practice of such events must be demonstrated. No
such pattern and practice is demonstrated here. This decision must proceed to
examine whether, combined with the other claims of impropriety presented for
decision, a combination of events can demonstrate a pattern and practice of
failure to faithfully and efficiently perform the duties of a sheriff.

The Firearms Trade Ins

As indicated in Dinding 102, the record keeping and paperwork problems

that contributed to the issues relating to (a) identifying any owner and the
means of Oxford County acquisition of Direarms in the evidence locker; and (b)
determining past practices and proper practices for disposition of Direarms
from the evidence locker; preceded Sheriff Wainwright’s tenure as Sheriff of
Oxford County and have continued during his tenure. Evidence, including
Sheriff’s Exhibit 5, indicated that other law enforcement agencies have similar
paperwork problems and other difDiculties in their Direarms disposition
practices. Further, the practices for disposition of Direarms in the possession of
the Oxford County Sheriff’s OfDice varied greatly over the years. Findings 301
to 320 outline the problem in detail.

In those circumstances, the record does not support, to the

preponderance of the evidence standard, any Dinding that Sheriff Wainwright,
in his trade in actions to obtain credits to be used for the purchase of new
Direarms, violated any provision of State law, Oxford County procurement policy,
Sheriff’s OfDice policy for retention and disposition of Direarms or evidence, or
rules of ethics applicable to law enforcement ofDicers.
 26

CertiSication Status of Two School Resource OfSicers

As was the case with the Direarms trade in issue, the record keeping and
paperwork problems that contributed to the issues relating to properly
certifying and documenting certiDication status of Deputies assigned as School
Resource OfDicers, preceded Sheriff Wainwright’s tenure as Sheriff of Oxford
County, and continued during his tenue, as outlined in the Dindings addressing
this SRO certiDication issue. Particularly notable was the apparent failure to
include notices of hire in the applications for certiDication of the two SROs
occurred in 2018.

After having been notiDied of the problem by a complaint, in September

2023, the MCJA reviewed the circumstances of the SROs initial hire,
deployment, lapse in certiDication and recertiDication processes. After review
and consultation, the issue was resolved without any disciplinary action being
taken. The MCJA issued a “letter of guidance” promoting improving the record
keeping and certiDication documentation practice, improvements that it
appears, without dispute, were needed.

In the circumstances demonstrated by the facts, the record does not

support, to the preponderance of the evidence standard, any Dinding that Sheriff
Wainwright, in his and his OfDice’s actions in certifying and documenting
certiDication of the SROs and in supervising and training the SROs, violated any
provision of State law, MCJA rules and supervision requirements, or rules of
ethics applicable to law enforcement ofDicers.

The Removal Issue

The record of the hearing and the Dindings and conclusions of this
Decision do not support removal of the Oxford County Sheriff from his elected
position. Failure to faithfully or efDiciently perform any duty imposed upon the
Sheriff by law, in order to justify removal, is not proven.