Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

701 Fifth Avenue

Suite 5600
Seattle, WA 98104-7097

October 26, 2021 +1 206 839 4300

orrick.com

Via Email and Regular Mail

Brian T. Moran

Chair Derek Young E [email protected]

D +1 206 839 4419
Pierce County Council F +1 206 839 4301
930 Tacoma Ave. S.
10th Floor, Rm 1046
Tacoma, WA 98402

Re: Pierce County Council Authorized Investigation (Sheriff Troyer)

Dear Chair Young:

We are submitting our investigative summary in the above-referenced matter with this letter. While the
Scope of Work was quite expansive, we trust the enclosed investigative summary will address the
Council’s questions and requests.

We want to extend our deep appreciation for the confidence you have placed in us and the tremendous
latitude we were provided to go where the facts took us and to reach conclusions about those facts. We
shall remain available to brief you, and the Council, on this matter if you believe that would be helpful.

Respectfully,

Brian T. Moran

Amanda McDowell
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1

II. Background and Scope of Work .......................................................................................... 1
III. Ivestigative Process .............................................................................................................. 2
IV. Facts ..................................................................................................................................... 3
A. Chronology of Events .......................................................................................................... 3
B. Disputed Facts and Conclusions re: Disputed Facts ............................................................ 8
1. When Did Sheriff Troyer know Mr. Altheimer’s race? ................................................... 9
2. Did Mr. Altheimer threaten to kill Sheriff Troyer? ........................................................ 10
V. Other Incidents involving Sheriff Troyer and Mr. Altheimer............................................ 12
A. Sheriff Troyer..................................................................................................................... 12
1. November 11, 2020 Campaign Headquarter Incident .................................................... 12
2. January 2020 Traffic Stop .............................................................................................. 14
B. Mr. Altheimer .................................................................................................................... 15
VI. Analysis of Standards, Policies, and Laws to the Facts ..................................................... 17
A. Deviation From Policies and Standards ............................................................................. 17
1. Policy 386 (Off Duty Law Enforcement Actions) ......................................................... 17
2. Policy 402 (Bias-Based Policing) .................................................................................. 18
3. Policy 340.3.5 (Standards of Conduct—Performance) .................................................. 19
4. Policy 203 (Department Management) .......................................................................... 20
B. Violations of Criminal Law ............................................................................................... 20
VII. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 21
A. Disciplinary Consequences ................................................................................................ 21
B. Brady and Criminal Justice Training Commission Referrals ............................................ 22
C. Oversight Recommendations ............................................................................................. 23
VIII. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 24
 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, we find that Sheriff Ed Troyer violated
several Pierce County Sheriff’s Department (PCSD) policies and standards when he followed
and engaged in a confrontation with newspaper carrier Sedrick Altheimer on January 27, 2021.
We are unable to substantiate Sheriff Troyer’s claim that Mr. Altheimer threatened to kill or
harm him during that incident. We also find that a reasonable person could conclude that Sheriff
Troyer exhibited an improper bias in his confrontation with Mr. Altheimer.

II. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK

We were retained by the Pierce County Council to investigate a confrontation that occurred on
January 27, 2021 between Pierce County Sheriff Ed Troyer and Sedrick Altheimer, a newspaper
carrier. The authority to conduct this investigation is found in Pierce County Charter, §2.25. We
were also granted authority to conduct inquiries into other incidents involving the Sheriff if they
occurred after January 1, 2020 and we believed they might help inform the events of January 27.

Orrick was retained to perform the following Scope of Work, in relevant part:

1. Determine the facts of what occurred during the incident on January 27, 2021, in which
the Sheriff requested assistance from Dispatch, including the response to the request, the
law enforcement investigation of the incident, and statements made thereafter. To the
extent possible, the investigation is to resolve disputed facts and versions, and include
investigation of motivations and states of mind of those involved, including potential
biases or prejudices.

2. Determine whether the Sheriff, during the January 27 incident, misused his authority,
deviated from standard or required law enforcement standards (including honesty),
violated any Sheriff’s Office policy or regulation, or violated any criminal law.

3. The Investigator shall consider whether investigating other conduct of the Sheriff could
help determine whether the January 27 incident was a misuse of authority, a deviation
from standards, or a violation of policy or law or help determine whether there is a
pattern of the same. The Investigator has discretion to make such investigations,
including investigation of actions taken before the Sheriff took office but while he was
the Sheriff’s Public Information Officer. Investigation of other conduct shall be limited
only to those incidents relevant to determining whether there is a pattern of misuse of
authority, deviation from standards, or a violation of policy or law, and shall not extend
to any incidents earlier than January 1, 2020, without specific authorization from the
Council. The Investigator’s report to Council shall include the Investigator’s reasons for
investigating or not investigating other conduct and report any relevant findings or
conclusions related to other conduct.

1
 4. If the Investigator determines that there was a misuse of authority, a deviation from
standards, or a violation of policy or law, determine what discipline could be
recommended if a Deputy Sheriff or other non-elected employee of the Sheriff’s Office
had so acted.

5. If the Investigator determines there was a misuse of authority, a deviation from standards,
or a violation of policy or law, the Investigator may provide any appropriate
recommendations for oversight or other procedures that could prevent or discourage
similar misconduct in the future by any person serving as Sheriff.

III. INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS

We began our investigation on April 5, 2021. After we began our review, on April 23, 2021,
Governor Inslee directed the state Attorney General to review the January 27 incident for
potential criminal charges. After communicating with the Chief Criminal Prosecutor in the
Attorney General’s office, we paused our inquiry briefly to avoid any complications that could
arise from parallel civil and criminal investigations. Once resumed, our investigation was
independent of, and separate from, the investigation conducted by the State Attorney General.

In the course of our investigation, we conducted our own interviews, reviewed summaries of
interviews conducted by the Attorney General’s office, conducted site visits, and reviewed
numerous documents including policies, procedures, 911 logs, 911 recordings, police reports,
body worn camera footage, and personnel records. We also reviewed numerous open source,
publicly available, media reports, interviews, and other materials. In addressing the relevant facts
of the events of January 27, 2021, we describe them below as: (a) Chronology of Events; and
(b) Disputed Facts and Conclusions re: Disputed Facts.

We note that while the Tacoma Police officers we contacted declined to be interviewed, we
reviewed their reports. These reports answered most of the questions we would have asked in
interviews. Mr. Altheimer also declined to be interviewed. However, we obtained a copy of his
interview with the Attorney General’s office and then posed additional written questions to him
through his counsel to seek clarification about his movements near Sheriff Troyer’s residence.
We received no response to this latter request. Finally, given Sheriff Troyer’s Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination we had no good faith basis to subpoena him.

This report is based on evidence available to us and as described above. There are instances
where there may not be complete agreement between Sheriff Troyer’s and Mr. Altheimer’s
versions of events and where additional information could impact the findings we reach.
However, most of the facts that are relevant and material to our inquiry are generally not in
dispute, and when they are, they are addressed and resolved in Sec. IV B, infra.

2
 IV. FACTS

A. Chronology of Events

1. Sheriff Troyer’s Decision to Follow Mr. Altheimer

On January 27, 2021, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Pierce County Sheriff Ed Troyer reports he
was in his residence located in north Tacoma. At some point while he was in bed, lights from a
vehicle drew his attention outside. From a window, he said he saw a vehicle in his driveway and
his neighbors’ driveways. Sheriff Troyer then left his residence and used his personal SUV to
follow the car he had seen. He was not in uniform and left his home without his police
credentials or other identifying police apparel or equipment.

After following the vehicle for a short distance, the car being followed turned around and was
positioned to face Sheriff Troyer’s SUV “nose to nose” and approximately 10-20 feet away. The
occupant of the vehicle, who was later identified by law enforcement as Sedrick Altheimer,
exited his car, approached Sheriff’s Troyer’s SUV, and asked Sheriff Troyer why he was
following him.

Moments later, in a call to 911 through an inside line, Sheriff Troyer described the vehicle he
followed by its license plate number and make, but also added that it was a “beat up truck or old
homeless looking Scion.” He also described the occupant of the vehicle, later determined to be
Mr. Altheimer, as looking “homeless” and being “in his neighbors’ houses,” “climbing all over,”
and trying “to get into [my] garage.” Sheriff Troyer, who at all times remained in his SUV, stated
to the 911 operator on at least three separate occasions that Mr. Altheimer “threatened to kill
[him],” “wants to kill [him],” or otherwise made threats against his life. Mr. Altheimer asserts
that when he approached Sheriff Troyer’s SUV, he recognized him as a law enforcement officer
and never threatened to harm him in any way.

Sheriff Troyer’s 911 call prompted a significant law enforcement response. Two of the deputy
sheriffs who responded to the scene and spoke with Sheriff Troyer confirmed the information
conveyed in their written reports; i.e., they responded from the South Hill area due to the
emergent nature of the call. When they arrived on scene, they observed Tacoma Police
Department (“TPD”) officers speaking with Mr. Altheimer, and since TPD had jurisdiction over
the investigation, they directed their attention to Sheriff Troyer.

While their contacts with Sheriff Troyer were relatively brief, the deputies confirmed the Sheriff
was safe, did not want a security detail at his residence, and just wanted the matter to be
concluded. When asked if they made any observations about Sheriff Troyer possibly being

3
impaired, both stated that because of Covid masking and distancing requirements, clear signs of
impairment were hard to detect. While he did not appear obviously impaired, both noted that
Sheriff Troyer’s speech was a little bit “off.” One of the deputies also explained that while
Sheriff Troyer said he had been home prior to this incident occurring, this statement seemed at
odds with his apparel; he was wearing a blazer, slacks, and shoes.

Later, both deputies listened to Sheriff Troyer’s 911 call. One deputy said his first thought was
“holy cow!” given the manner in which Sheriff Troyer was talking and how he was describing
the events of that morning. The other deputy thought Sheriff Toyer sounded “a little impaired,”
but also stated he didn’t know Sheriff Troyer well enough to be certain.

Mr. Altheimer stated he was delivering newspapers in the usual course of his job near Sheriff
Troyer’s residence and first noticed that he was being followed after he left the area and was
turning off of Vista View Drive and onto 23rd Street. This is roughly two blocks from the Troyer
residence.1 At some point, in the vicinity of Narrows Drive, Mr. Altheimer said that after leaving
a paper at a customer’s house he then decided to approach the vehicle that had been following
him; Sheriff Troyer’s SUV. Mr. Altheimer reports he walked up to the vehicle and asked Sheriff
Troyer why he was being followed, stating “is it because I am Black?” He also asked the Sheriff
if he was a police officer because he recognized him. According to Mr. Altheimer, Sheriff Troyer
replied, “my wife is Black,” to which Mr. Altheimer said “congratulations.” Mr. Altheimer said
Sheriff Troyer then said, “What are you doing out here? Do you know where you are? You’re a
porch pirate.” Mr. Altheimer said he then turned to walk away and Sheriff Troyer said, “Hey.
Don’t walk away…. I have four cops coming,” to which Mr. Altheimer replied “good.”

Mr. Altheimer said he recognized Sheriff Troyer as a police officer as soon as he approached his
SUV. Sheriff Troyer, as the former Public Information Officer for the PCSD for many years and
the recently elected county sheriff, is a widely recognized Pierce County law enforcement
official. Sheriff Troyer confirms that Mr. Altheimer recognized him as a police officer. It does
not appear that Mr. Altheimer ever verbally identified himself to Sheriff Troyer as a newspaper
carrier. There is, however, the possibility that as he followed Mr. Altheimer, Sheriff Troyer
could have seen Mr. Altheimer delivering papers along his route.

Mr. Altheimer reports he got back in his car and “hit the gas” to get away from the area. Sheriff
Troyer then did a U-turn and “aggressively” followed him to an area near Deidra Circle.2 From

1
Sheriff Troyer is not one of Mr. Altheimer’s customers. Mr. Altheimer believed Sheriff Troyer’s residence was
occupied by a police officer based on the police vehicles he had seen there in the past.
2
We were unable to clarify whether there were, in fact, two separate locations where the two men confronted one
another, one occurring before Diedra Circle and one at Diedra Circle. However, the answer to this question is not
particularly relevant to the issues we address in this report.

4
other reports and video footage, Mr. Altheimer then turned his car around, again facing Sheriff
Troyer’s SUV, approximately 10-20 feet apart. He then exited his car, pulled out his phone and
began to take pictures of Sheriff Troyer’s SUV. Around this time, Tacoma officers arrived and
confronted Mr. Altheimer at gunpoint.

2. The 911 Call

Sheriff Troyer stated that he called 911 dispatch to obtain backup because Mr. Altheimer was
highly agitated, had threatened to kill him, knew where he lived, and he wanted to disengage and
deescalate the situation. The 911 recording is a contemporaneous record of the events at or very
near in time to when they unfolded and provides a verbatim record of what Sheriff Troyer said
about what he observed, or believed he observed, that morning.

Sheriff Troyer began the call by identifying himself as “Troyer” and stated he was at “27th and
Diedra.” Thus, when Sheriff Troyer initiated the 911 call, he was already at the Diedra Circle
location and it appears that the verbal confrontation with Mr. Altheimer had concluded. Put
another way, Sheriff Troyer was not reporting the events of that morning in “real time” or as he
was following Mr. Altheimer; he had already stopped his SUV and the 911 recording confirms
any verbal exchange had already ended.

More specifically, thirteen seconds into the call, Sheriff Troyer reports that he “caught someone
in my driveway and he just threatened to kill me and I blocked him in. He’s here right now.”
Because of his experience as a long-serving law enforcement officer, he clearly would know that
such a statement to a 911 operator about his life being threatened, with the alleged aggressor
reportedly still present at the scene, would draw an immediate emergency response from law
enforcement. That is precisely what occurred.

911 records and TPD reports establish that approximately 42 police units initially began to
respond to Sheriff Troyer’s 911 call. This included TPD, the law enforcement agency with
jurisdiction where the events occurred, as well as responses from state, tribal, county, and other
municipal law enforcement agencies including Lakewood, Puyallup, and Fife. While the
majority of responding officers were called off once TPD officers arrived and advised the 911
dispatcher they had the scene under control, a significant number of officers still arrived at the
Deidra Circle location.

Other parts of Sheriff Troyer’s 911 call provide more insight into what the Sheriff said he saw
and suspected, as well as shedding some light on the exchange between he and Mr. Altheimer.
At various times in the 911 call, Sheriff Troyer reported (emphasis added):

5
 (a) “…I caught someone in my driveway and he just threatened to kill me and I
blocked him in. He’s here right now.”

(b) “And he’s in some gray car and it was in my driveway and my neighbor’s
driveway and he knows me who I am and he threatened to kill me and I got him
blocked in…”

(c) “I think his plate is Boy, hang on, Boy, Williams Boy 5 7, hang on, I really need
just one or two people here at first….he’s not going to let me leave—”

(d) 911: Okay, does he have a gun or anything?

Troyer: “I have no idea…he looks homeless and his car was in my driveway and I
got in my car and then he was in my neighbor’s driveway and he tried to get into my
garage….so I’ve got him blocked in….”

(e) “He was in my neighbors’ houses and climbing all over…”

(f) He was driving “some sort of a beat-up truck, old homeless looking Scion.”

(g) “I tried to be polite to him and he just says I’m a racist and wants to kill me so.”

(h) “I think he might have one of those garage door openers because he pulled into
four or five different houses around the neighborhood and tried to hit the garage door
opener button.”

(i) “…and he tried everywhere else. So he’s looking for me.”

(j) “…I was home and saw the lights coming in on out and everything. And I looked
and he was like pulling in all of the driveways and I thought he was one of those guys
that’s a kind of thief that has a garage door opener. And so I went out to follow him…

(k) “And so I went out and followed him and he blocked me off and accosted me and
said you’re a cop and started threatening me…”

(l) “He literally blocked me in and…”

See Attachment “A” (Transcription of 911 Call).

6
That this call prompted an all-hands, emergent, response from fellow law enforcement officers in
Tacoma and across the county is the least surprising part of our inquiry. Officers responding to
this seemingly emergent and fluid series of events had only the most basic information and any
inferences they could draw from this information, e.g., an aggressive person had threatened to
kill the sheriff, had him blocked in, and was still at the scene.

Body camera footage and other records confirm that numerous units and officers responded to
the scene with emergency equipment activated and travelling at high speeds. The degree of
danger this call and the predictable response posed to the officers and public was significant, but
the danger this incident posed to Mr. Altheimer is most concerning. It is not hyperbole to state
that Mr. Altheimer, who was initially secured at gunpoint, could have been just an unintentional
or misperceived gesture away from serious harm or worse by responding officers. The
professionalism of the officers who arrived on scene first is commendable. They, too, were put in
a very difficult situation as a result of these events.

When interviewed by TPD Officer Lawless within minutes of his arrival on scene, Sheriff
Troyer, when specifically asked if he had been threatened by Mr. Altheimer, stated that he had
not been. Sheriff Troyer did say Mr. Altheimer was angry and “wanted to fight.” See Attachment
“B” (TPD Officer Lawless Report).

That same morning, a Facebook exchange began at 9:30 a.m. between one of Sheriff Troyer’s
neighbors and the Sheriff:

Ed, this morning at about 2am, you and a number of deputies from PC and TPD
had a guy out of his car with lights going and seemingly no arrest. The guy later
drove off on his own. Considering the number of units and officers on site it
seemed pretty serious. Can you tell me what happened? I live here and its (sic) not
something that normally happened around here. Thanks, your neighbor.

Sheriff Troyer replied on January 27th at 11:10 p.m.:

Hey sorry for the late reply. The guy was driving in and out of driveways stopped
in street and yelled at my house when I looked out he launched a newspaper at my
house. I don’t take the paper. He was anti cop and stated he knew who I was and
he fled. I found him up the street in another driveway he saw me and blocked me
in. I called it in and wasn’t expecting that massive response but in today’s world
and my new job who knows. The guy is active D O C status and says he was
delivering papers for a friend. He was living out of his car. Couldn’t explain the
driveway thing. They ID him and kick him lose. 15 min later he was in front of

7
 my house yelling again and tossed another paper and drive off. Odd. I know who
he is and called the tribune. Delivery in papers at 1 30 am. geez

Since making the 911call, providing a statement to Officer Lawless within minutes of the 911
call, and the above exchange with his neighbor, Sheriff Troyer’s version of events continued to
evolve. On March 20, 2021, during an interview on the Jason Rantz show, Sheriff Troyer
described that Mr. Altheimer was “upset” and “said some things” to him that he interpreted as a
threat on his life. But once he knew Mr. Altheimer was delivering newspapers, he “was willing
to just let it go.” See: https://omny.fm/shows/the-jason-rantz-show/sheriff-ed-troyer-reacts-to-a-
seattle-times-piece (Jason Rantz show).

Two days later, on March 22, 2021, when asked on the Dori Monson show if Mr. Altheimer
threatened to kill him, Sheriff Troyer said the “wording may have been different,” but that
Mr. Altheimer threatened to “take him out” and he felt threatened. Still, Sheriff Troyer declined
further action once it was established Mr. Altheimer was a newspaper carrier. Sheriff Troyer also
stated that he did not know Mr. Atheimer’s race when he began to follow him. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAUZYZavW0Q (Dori Monson Show).

For his part, Mr. Altheimer has consistently maintained he did not threaten Sheriff Troyer, whom
he recognized as a police officer upon approaching his SUV. This identification is confirmed by
Sheriff Troyer. Mr. Altheimer stated to the TPD officers at the scene, when asked if he had
threatened the Sheriff, “I knew he was a fucking cop … No, what would I threaten him for. I feel
threatened. I’m followed. Just because I walked up on [inaudible]. Nobody made no threats.
That’s a lie. If I made a threat I would tell you, but I didn’t. I didn’t even go to him angry. I just
wanted to know why he was following me.”

In the police body worn camera footage from the scene, Mr. Altheimer said he believed he was
targeted by the Sheriff because he was a Black man in a nice neighborhood and driving a
“bucket.” He was emphatic that he never threatened Sheriff Troyer, whom he recognized as a
police officer, and maintained that Sheriff Troyer lied about being threatened when he called
911. While very agitated, Mr. Altheimer was nonetheless compliant with the officers’ requests
and allowed them to search his car for weapons. The only object TPD located was a small knife
used to cut the string on the newspapers he was delivering.

B. Disputed Facts and Conclusions re: Disputed Facts

While most of the events that occurred that morning are not in dispute, there are two relevant and
material factual matters that are disputed. To resolve these disputes, we considered all of the

8
available evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence and applied a “more probable
than not,” or preponderance of the evidence standard, and drew the following conclusions.3

1. When Did Sheriff Troyer know Mr. Altheimer’s race?

Mr. Altheimer maintains Sheriff Troyer followed him becausehe was Black.Sheriff Troyer
denies that he knew Mr. Altheimer’s race when he began to follow him. There are only two
witnesses available to help us determine whether Sheriff Troyer decided to follow Mr. Atheimer,
at least in part, because he is a Black man—Sheriff Troyer and Mr. Altheimer. As noted above,
Mr. Altheimer declined to be interviewed and, given Sheriff Troyer’s Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination, we had no legal basis to subpoena him. It is important to note that we
did not draw any adverse inferences from either Mr. Altheimer’s or Sheriff Troyer’s decision not
to be interviewed.

There are some things we do not fully know about the movements of the two men before the
confrontation at the Diedra Circle location. For example, if, as Mr. Altheimer claims, he was
followed at least in part because he was Black, it would be helpful to know if he was outside of
his car or if his car was positioned in a way when it was near Sheriff Troyer’s residence that
would afford Sheriff Troyer the ability to determine his race before Sheriff Troyer started
following him. Similarly, it would be important to know why Sheriff Troyer, who followed
Mr. Altheimer for several blocks, was unable to determine Mr. Altheimer was a newspaper
carrier when Mr. Altheimer said he delivered papers to several customers between the Troyer
residence and the Diedra Circle where they eventually stopped.

We do know that Mr. Altheimer did not deliver a paper to the Troyer residence as part of his
route. He also did not deliver papers to the two residences immediately across the street from the
Troyer residence. From our view of the area, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to see
anyone inside a car, and perhaps even outside of a car, at the neighbors’ residences who did take
the paper given their location in relation to the Troyer residence, Sheriff Troyer’s stated vantage
point from inside his home, and the lighting and time of day.

A determination on this point is made more difficult by the Sheriff’s confusing and inconsistent
statements about what he saw Mr. Altheimer doing while near his house. According to some of
the versions Sheriff Troyer has told, he saw Mr. Altheimer out of his car, running all around, in

3
A preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof typically applied in a civil setting and means “more
probable than not.” It is distinct from proof beyond a reasonable doubt that is required to secure a conviction in a
criminal setting.
9
the neighbors’ houses, in his driveway, and launching a newspaper at his residence before he
started following him.4

Sheriff Troyer has stated he did not know Mr. Altheimer’s race when he began to follow him and
did not see him up close until they both stopped their vehicles near Diedra Circle. On balance,
given the totality of facts available to us, including Mr. Altheimer’s statements to the Attorney
General’s staff about his movements on his route that morning, we cannot find on a more
probable than not basis that Sheriff Troyer knew Mr. Altheimer’s race at the time he began to
follow Mr. Altheimer’s car.

Importantly, as noted above, Sheriff Troyer began his 911 call by identifying himself as “Troyer”
and stated he was at “27th and Diedra.” The location from where this call was initiated is
significant, as well as what is heard and not heard on the call. From the 911 recording, it is clear
that Sheriff Troyer initiated the 911 call from the Diedra Circle location. It is also clear from the
recording that any verbal exchange between Mr. Altheimer and Sheriff Troyer had already
concluded; no other voices or background noise can be heard on the call, Sheriff Troyer speaks
to the 911 dispatcher and no one else, and the call concludes when TPD arrives and
Mr. Altheimer is taken into custody. Thus, we conclude that when Sheriff Troyer initiated his
call to 911, he knew Mr. Altheimer was Black.

At the same time, we note that even after Mr. Altheimer approached Sheriff Troyer as he
remained seated in his SUV and was still on the 911 call, Sheriff Troyer did not physically
describe the person who he said was threatening to kill him. This seems to run contrary to
common sense and accepted police procedure; an officer whose life is being threatened would
presumably want to describe the aggressor’s physical characteristics and clothing, and not just
the car he or she was driving. The 911 operator also did not ask Sheriff to describe his aggressor.

2. Did Mr. Altheimer threaten to kill Sheriff Troyer?

Mr. Altheimer has consistently maintained he did not threaten to kill or harm Sheriff Troyer,
whom he said he quickly recognized as a police officer, though not necessarily as the Sheriff.
Sheriff Troyer states repeatedly in his 911 call that Mr. Altheimer threatened to kill him, but then
contradicted these statements minutes later when being interviewed by TPD Officer Lawless.

There is no question that Mr. Altheimer was visibly upset and angry when talking to the Tacoma
officers on scene—as confirmed bythe body camera footage. This raises questions as to his
assertion to the Attorney General’s office that he was not agitated during his confrontation with
Sheriff Troyer minutes earlier. But, though visibly agitated, Mr. Altheimer complied with the

4
Mr. Altheimer admits that he returned to the Troyer residence and threw a newspaper in his driveway after the
altercation with Sheriff Troyer, but not before it.

10
officers’ requests within minutes of his confrontation with Sheriff Troyer. For Mr. Altheimer to
have threatened someone he recognized as a police officer, it follows he could also reasonably
assume such threats might very well carry potential liability for him, and quite possibly criminal
liability.5

Sheriff Troyer told the 911 operator that Mr. Altheimer “threatened to kill me” and “wants to
kill me.” These statements were made close in time to when they were allegedly uttered by Mr.
Altheimer and when the precise words used would be easiest to recall and repeat by Sheriff
Troyer to the 911 dispatcher. Minutes later, however, when interviewed by TPD Officer
Lawless, Sheriff Troyer contradicted the statements he made on the 911 call:

“I specifically asked 01/Troyer if O2/Altheimer ever made threats toward him or

displayed any weapons. 01/Troyer advised O2/Altheimer never threatened him
and he did not observe O2/Altheimer with any weapons. 01/Troyer described that
when he confronted O2/Altheimer at the listed address it was clear he, “wanted to
fight.”

See Attachment “B” (TPD Officer Lawless Report).

We find Officer Lawless’ report to be a reliable and credible source of Sheriff Troyer’s
statements that morning. Officer Lawless would know he was investigating a possible crime
against a public official and the specific words used could be critical in assessing whether a
criminal offense had occurred, and if so, the seriousness of the potential crime.6 Sheriff Troyer
would also know that a threat made to kill him would be a potential criminal offense and he was
undoubtedly aware of why he was being questioned by Officer Lawless on that point.

In addition, Sheriff Troyer’s versions of events to his neighbor and during at least two media
interviews materially deviate from the statements he made on the 911 call. In the version given
to the media, Mr. Altheimer “said some words” and wanted to “take him out” and the Sheriff
interpreted the words as a threat and stated that he felt threatened. In sum, Sheriff Troyer has
given at least three different versions of what happened that morning: (a) Mr. Altheimer
explicitly threatened to “kill” him (911 call), (b) Mr. Altheimer never threatened him (TPD

5
We are aware that at the time of these events, Mr. Altheimer was on supervision by the Department of Corrections
(DOC) for prior criminal conduct. His past criminal history did not play a role in our determination of his credibility
on this occasion. But, it may follow that given his active supervision status, he would be less likely to threaten to kill
someone he recognized as a law enforcement officer since that would almost certainly have serious and rapid
consequences for him as a DOC supervisee.
6
RCW 9A.46.020 provides that a threat to cause bodily harm immediately or in the future can constitute a gross
misdemeanor crime, or a Class C felony if the threat is to kill the person being threatened. In both instances, the
aggressor must place the person being threatened, by words or conduct, in reasonable fear that the threat will be
carried out. RCW 9A.46.020(1)(a)(i),(b), and (2)(b).

11
Lawless report), and (c) while the wording was different, Sheriff Troyer felt threatened by
Mr. Altheimer (Monson/Rantz interviews). Versions (a) and (b) were made very close in time
and cannot both be true.

While there are degrees of threat possible, as to an explicit threat to kill being made, Sheriff
Troyer affirmatively stated to a fellow officer that he had not been threatened just minutes after
his 911 call, and later still, that Mr. Altheimer “said some things” to him that he interpreted as a
threat. Mr. Altheimer denied threatening Sheriff Troyer in any way. On balance, and based on
all the evidence available to us, we conclude on a more probable than not basis that
Mr. Altheimer did not “threaten to kill” or otherwise harm Sheriff Troyer that morning.

V. OTHER INCIDENTS INVOLVING SHERIFF TROYER AND MR. ALTHEIMER

We reviewed additional and unrelated incidents involving Sheriff Troyer occurring after
January 1, 2020. The first occurred on November 11, 2020 at Sheriff Troyer’s campaign office
and the second occurred sometime in January 2020 and involved a traffic stop in the north end of
Tacoma near Sheriff Troyer’s residence. Additionally, we had witnesses identified to us who
provided information about past incidents purportedly involving Mr. Altheimer. Information
concerning these incidents is reported here because it may inform some of the events of January
27, 2021.

A. Sheriff Troyer

1. November 11, 2020 Campaign Headquarter Incident

On November 11, 2020, an incident occurred at Sheriff Troyer’s former election campaign office
located at 2525 N. Stevens in Tacoma, Washington. At approximately 10:30 p.m., Sheriff Troyer
called 911 and asked if they “had a unit I can get priority to” his address to assist with a car
prowl he had interrupted and a “little skirmish” he had with the two suspects. In the forty-six
second 911 call, Sheriff Troyer repeated that he needed just one car to respond. Thus, the Sheriff
clearly communicated to the 911 dispatcher that while he was requesting a unit “priority,” the
matter was not life threatening or emergent.

Several officers were dispatched and responded, but apparently because Sheriff Troyer deemed
the matter as having been resolved before Tacoma officers arrived, no report was written about
the matter until March 23, 2021, after the January 27, 2021 incident became public. See
Attachment “C” (TPD Officer Pinkerton Report).

That evening, Sheriff Troyer and his wife were in his election office when he saw a vehicle pull
up next to their personal car. The driver got out of the car and entered Sheriff Troyer’s car. He

12
described this man as a Black male, in his 20’s, and having tattoos on his arms and wearing a
“hoodie.” Sheriff Troyer immediately went outside, confronted the man who had entered his car,
and proceeded to “wrestle” the items he had taken from their car out of his hands. One of the
items was Sheriff Troyer’s wife’s wallet, containing her driver’s license, credit cards, and
approximately $85. Sheriff Troyer’s wife later noted that her wallet had been unzipped, but none
of the contents were missing. The theft of a credit card could potentially constitute a felony theft
or attempted theft of an access device. See Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
9A.56.040)(1)(d).

After this initial confrontation, Sheriff Troyer stated the man taking his wife’s wallet seemed
“apologetic” and said words to the effect of “I’m sorry. Here just take the stuff back.” Sheriff
Troyer described the second man in the passenger seat as a Black male in his 20’s wearing dark
clothing. This man never left the suspect vehicle. As the two suspects were leaving, Sheriff
Troyer described hearing something being said about his being a police officer, which he
attributed as a reason why the first man/driver seemed apologetic. Sheriff Troyer and his wife
were able to obtain cell phone photographs of the suspects’ car, its license plate, describe its
occupants as Black males, and attempted to photograph the suspects who hid their faces. We
were provided with these photographs and video of the scene from across a parking lot, and
while blurry and taken from a distance, they corroborate Sheriff Troyer’s version of events.

As they left the scene, Sheriff Troyer heard the car accelerate at a high rate of speed and called
911 to request one unit respond “priority” in case the suspects came back. In fact, several
Tacoma officers responded and canvassed the area without success in locating the suspects.

While the officers were able to determine that evening who the registered owner of the suspect
vehicle was, that owner was clearly not in his “20’s” as Sheriff Troyer and his wife both
described the suspects, and the car’s owner was ruled out as a suspect. There does not appear to
have been any follow up with the registered owner of the vehicle to identify who the two
suspects might have been who were using his car.

We reviewed this matter because there has been some speculation that Sheriff Troyer’s action
that evening may have been motivated, at least in part, because the two subjects were Black. We
find no facts to support such speculation. The two suspects are unknown, the facts of what
occurred that evening are currently undisputed, the two eyewitnesses to the event described the
suspects as Black males, and photos and videos of the incident support Sheriff Troyer’s and his
wife’s statements about the incident.

13
 2. January 2020 Traffic Stop

Sometime in January 2020, at approximately 5:30 p.m., a 79-year-old retiree, “M.H.,” reported
that he was driving along North Jackson and North Narrows Drive in the north end of Tacoma
when he noticed a vehicle ahead of him approaching a T-intersection at a “pretty good clip.”
Because M.H. had the right of way and was concerned the driver might not see him and roll
through the stop sign, M.H. flashed his high beams “once or twice” to alert the driver to his
presence. As he passed by the intersection, M.H. noticed the vehicle was a police car. The police
car turned to follow M.H. as he drove by and activated its emergency equipment, signaling for
him to pull over. M.H. turned onto a side street and stopped his car.

As the officer approached M.H.’s car, he noticed immediately that it was recently elected Sheriff
Troyer who had stopped him. M.H., who had never met the Sheriff, said words to the effect of
“congratulations on the promotion and being elected sheriff, Ed.” M.H. said that this seemed to
catch Sheriff Troyer off guard, and the Sheriff then cautioned M.H. about flashing his high
beams at cars advising him that while it was safe to do that in the neighborhood where they were
located, doing so in another place “might get him shot.”

As an initial proposition, the basis for believing that in some neighborhoods one is more likely to
get shot for flashing ones’ headlights at another driver is hard to understand. Accepting as true
that some parts of the city and county may be more dangerous than others, Sheriff Troyer’s
statement fails to account for the fact that cars, and any bad actors driving them, are mobile and
not confined to just the “bad” parts of the city or county.

M.H. was taken aback at the stated reason for the stop and wondered about the legality and
judgment of a police officer pulling someone over for simply flashing their headlights as a
warning. He posed this question to a friend who had previously served as a deputy sheriff with
Pierce County. M.H.’s friend brought the matter to our attention because he also questioned the
Sheriff’s judgment, if not the legality, for the basis of the stop.

It is unclear that flashing one’s headlights in this manner constitutes an infraction since at least
some definitions of an “oncoming” car under the relevant statute suggest that both cars be
moving toward or approaching one another.7 That aside, Sheriff Troyer’s intent in detaining
M.H. was apparently not grounded in a belief that M.H. had committed an infraction, but rather
in the Sheriff’s desire to exert his authority and make a point, or in the best possible light,
communicate a public safety message. The point being, that while M.H. was not particularly
offended by this interaction, he stated what is perhaps the most insightful comment we heard

7
RCW 46.37.230 provides: “(2) Whenever a driver of a vehicle approaches an oncoming vehicle within five
hundred feet, such driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam, so aimed that the glaring rays are not
projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver.”
14
during the course of our inquiry: “How would I feel if I were pulled over for this kind of thing
and I were a Black man?”

B. Mr. Altheimer

Sheriff Troyer provided us with several potential witnesses who reportedly contacted him about
Mr. Altheimer’s conduct as a newspaper carrier and who Sheriff Troyer believed might provide
relevant information to us. All witnesses were interviewed, and the information they provided to
us painted an unflattering picture of a newspaper carrier they believe was Mr. Altheimer.8

In one instance, a newspaper carrier left a paper at customer “M.G.’s” residence, located near the
Troyer residence, but was also seen trying a door handle of a car in the driveway, peering
through the front door of the residence, and then urinating in a nook on the porch. This occurred
in the early morning hours of January 2019, and the neighbor across the street captured these
events on her Ring doorbell in addition to viewing the activity from her window. The neighbor
confirmed that she believed the carrier was Mr. Altheimer.9

On another occasion, a couple awoke very early in the morning for a trip and as they were
leaving their residence, they saw a car in their neighbor’s driveway they didn’t recognize. Their
home is several blocks from the Troyer residence. Because they were concerned for their elderly
neighbor, they followed the subject vehicle long enough to determine that it was being driven by
a newspaper carrier. The driver then turned his car around and drove by them very slowly, rolled
his window down, and made a face at them. It was at this time they were first able to see the
driver was a Black male. Early the next morning, the couple heard a knock on their door, and
when they answered, there was a newspaper in their driveway even though they did not have a
subscription.

On a third occasion, “J.H.” and his wife, “D.H.,” were returning from a holiday event occurring
in approximately January or February 2020. As they pulled into their driveway at approximately
2:30 a.m. near 35th and Orchard, they noticed an unknown and occupied car with its lights off
parked in their elderly neighbor's driveway. J.H. typically parked one of his construction trucks
in the neighbor’s driveway, not only because he needed the space for the truck, but because it
also helped his neighbor’s residence appear like it was occupied by a working-aged person.

8
The degree of certainty that the newspaper carrier observed was Mr. Altheimer varied, but where there was no
positive identification, their description of his physical appearance and car, coupled with the fact that all of them
observed the person engaged in delivering newspapers in the Vista View Drive area and other factors, leads us to
conclude that the person they observed was likely Mr. Altheimer.
9
This witness had approximately three videos of activity occurring across the street at M.G.’s home, but she
retained only one.
15
J.H and D.H. watched the car for a while because they were concerned the occupant may have
been trying to steal tools out of his truck. The car then left and drove down the street with its
lights still off and J.H. and D.H. followed at distance until it pulled into another driveway two to
three blocks from their residence. At this point, D.H. asked J.H. to take her home.

After taking his wife home, J.H. returned to the second driveway and saw the car was gone. He
circled the neighborhood and then located the car in a third driveway with its brake lights on. At
this point, the car in the driveway pulled alongside J.H.’s car and J.H. rolled down his window to
ask him what he was doing. For the first time, J.H. could see that the person driving was a Black
male and that there was a female in the passenger seat. J.H. asked the driver what he was doing
and was told to “mind your fucking business” and to “fuck off.” The driver then got out of his
car and walked to J.H.’s car with his hand under his sweatshirt in a manner that appeared to J.H.
that he was concealing a weapon. J.H., who has a concealed weapons permit, pulled his firearm
out and put it on his lap because he interpreted the driver’s actions to be extremely aggressive.

As he approached J.H.’s vehicle, the driver continued to swear at him and accused J.H. of
“harassing me because I’m Black.” J.H. replied that he had no idea what race he was or anything
else about him when he started following him; he was merely concerned for his neighbor and he
knew the papers are usually delivered around 5:00 a.m.10 The driver then pulled a newspaper out
from under his sweatshirt, threw it in the driveway, and drove off.

The following morning, J.H. and C.H. were awakened by loud banging on their door. J.H. and
C.H. described it as the kind of knock that means something might be wrong, so J.H. again
obtained his weapon and went to the door. Upon seeing it was the newspaper carrier from the
previous morning he put his weapon away and then tried to catch up to him so they could talk
about what had happened the previous morning. J.H. said to him that if he had known he was a
newspaper carrier he would never have followed him. The newspaper carrier replied by throwing
a paper in his driveway, said “compliments of the TNT,” and drove off.

Two or three mornings later, J.H. again heard a knock at their door, but this time it was less
forceful. At the door, J.H. was greeted by the same newspaper carrier who offered him a free
trial subscription to the paper. J.H., who has worked with youth in the past, told the “young man”
they needed to talk and they sat on the front lawn and spoke for about 15 minutes. J.H. impressed
upon him how his aggressive actions and demeanor had almost gotten him shot that first morning
and that he couldn’t go through life acting that way. The newspaper carrier seemed remorseful
and told J.H. he was under a great deal of stress and that the woman who had been with him was

10
In a later conversation with J.H., the newspaper carrier stated they had recently altered the time of the deliveries to
begin earlier in the morning.

16
his pregnant girlfriend. At some point, the conversation turned to the newspaper carrier’s need
for an infant car seat and J.H. offered him two car seats his family no longer needed. The
newspaper carrier returned a few days later to pick them up.

J.H. and C.H. have been active in Crime Stoppers and other public-private organizations with
law enforcement connections. Shortly after the January 27, 2021 incident involving Sheriff
Troyer, J.H. was at an event with “Ed.” The Sheriff mentioned to J.H. that he had engaged in an
unusual interaction with a newspaper carrier just a day or two before and described seeing a man
near his neighbor’s houses and then following him to determine what he was doing. J.H. did not
mention his experience with the newspaper carrier he had come in contact with a year earlier
because he didn’t believe they were related in any way. However, when the media began
reporting the January 27, 2021 incident, J.H. saw the reports and immediately recognized the
newspaper carrier he had encountered as Sedrick Altheimer.

From these events, we conclude that Mr. Altheimer has previously engaged in inappropriate and
at times aggressive behavior when he perceives he falls under suspicion in the course of doing
his job. The conduct attributed to him by some of these witnesses who encountered him while
delivering papers is qualitatively similar to the aggressive conduct attributed to him by Sheriff
Troyer.11

VI. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS, POLICIES, AND LAWS TO THE FACTS

A. Deviation From Policies and Standards

There are a number of policies in the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department (PCSD) Policy Manual
that touch on aspects of the exchange between Sheriff Troyer and Mr. Altheimer. These policies
address standards of conduct required of all Sheriff Department employees.

As a preliminary matter, employees of the Sheriff’s Department are required to know the policies
that touch on their respective job classification, work they perform, and activities they engage in.
Policy Manual, 106.5. Given his position in the Department and role in approving all policies,
Sheriff Troyer can be presumed to know and abide by the policies in his Department’s Manual.

1. Policy 386 (Off Duty Law Enforcement Actions)

Policy 386 addresses the policies and standards governing, and limiting, off duty law
enforcement activities by deputy sheriffs. “The decision to become involved in a law

11
We have no evidence that Sheriff Troyer was aware of any of these incidents at the time of his confrontation with
Mr. Altheimer.

17
enforcement action when off duty can place a law enforcement deputy and others at great risk
and must be done with careful consideration.” Policy Manual, 386.1

As a guiding principle, “[i]nitiating law enforcement is generally discouraged.” Deputies “should

not attempt to initiate enforcement action when witnessing minor crimes, such as suspected
intoxicated drivers, reckless driving or minor property crimes.” However, off duty officers may
take reasonable action to “minimize the imminent threat of bodily injury or death, or significant
property damage…” Finally, Policy 386 cautions that even in instances where “public safety or
the prevention of major property damage requires immediate action, deputies should first
consider reporting and monitoring the activity… Policy Manual 386.2.

In one statement attributed to Sheriff Troyer, he said that he was just observing suspicious
behavior as any other citizen might do. But Policy 386 presents a purely binary standard for
PCSD deputies; a sheriff’s deputy is either on duty or he or she is off duty. There is no third
category of “acting as any other citizen might” contemplated under the policy. Thus, if off duty,
a deputy sheriff must adhere to the relevant policies regarding off duty investigative activity.

Additionally, Sheriff Troyer’s suggestion that he was following policy because he was just
monitoring Mr. Altheimer’s alleged suspicious conduct is similarly violative of Policy 386; a
deputy’s ability to intervene or monitor criminal activity is specifically limited to those instances
where “public safety or the prevention of major property damage requires immediate action…”
Here, neither of these factors was present. Some questionable observations, viewed from a
distance, about crimes that might be underway does not rise to this level. In sum, Sheriff Troyer
violated both the letter and spirit of PCSD Policy 386.

2. Policy 402 (Bias-Based Policing)

The Pierce County Council’s Scope of Work requested, “[t]o the extent possible, the
investigation is to resolve disputed facts and versions, and include investigation of motivations
and states of mind of those involved, including potential biases or prejudices.” Policy 402
“provides guidance to department members that affirms the Pierce County Sheriff’s
Department’s commitment to policing that is fair and objective.” Policy Manual 402.1

Racial or Biased-Based policing is that which improperly relies on characteristics “such as race,
ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression,
economic status, age, cultural group, disability or affiliation with any non-criminal group
(protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or
enforcement than would otherwise be provided.” Policy Manual, 402.1.1 (emphasis added).

Sheriff Troyer’s 911 call leaves little doubt about two fact determinations we have made. One,
Mr. Altheimer’s perceived economic status may have played a role in the Sheriff’s decision to

18
initially focus his attention on Mr. Altheimer. Two, Sheriff Troyer knew Mr. Altheimer was a
Black man before he made his 911 call.

Turning to the first factor, while it is not improper to use descriptors that may touch on a
protected characteristic (i.e., the suspect is an Asian male, the car is old and damaged), it is
improper to characterize Mr. Altheimer as appearing to be “homeless” or driving a car a
“homeless” person would drive. The 911 transcript reflects that after providing Mr. Altheimer’s
license plate information, Sheriff Troyer gratuitously described Mr. Altheimer and his vehicle as
follows: “he looks homeless in his car” and he was driving a “beat up truck, old homeless
looking” vehicle. Implicit in these statements is the biased belief that because someone “looks
homeless” or isdriving an older, “beat up” car, they are more likely to commit crimes. In other
words, Sheriff Troyer is not using these phrases as descriptive terms but as facts to support his
initial (and mistaken) belief that there was a crime afoot.

What role, if any, Mr. Altheimer’s race played in Sheriff Troyer’s decision to call 911 is much
harder to assess. Unlike the statements he made about Mr. Altheimer’s physical description that
he looks “homeless” and was driving a “old homeless looking” car, Sheriff Troyer makes no
mention of Mr. Altheimer’s race on the 911 call nor is he asked by the 911 dispatcher to describe
the man. But that is not conclusive.

People with biases and prejudices do not generally manifest them openly if they are aware of
them, and in fact, may seek to conceal them. In his public statements, Sheriff Troyer has stated
he called 911 because Mr. Altheimer was extremely angry, threatened to “take him out,” knew
he was a police officer, never identified himself as a newspaper carrier, and knew where he
lived. Whether Sheriff Troyer, if confronted with the identical conduct and under identical
circumstances involving a white male would have called 911 is unknowable by us.

We find by a preponderance of the available evidence that Sheriff Troyer engaged in conduct
that his Department expressly forbids—employing an economic bias to support his mistaken
belief that Mr. Altheimer must be engaged in criminal activity. Sheriff Troyer, therefore, violated
Policy 402.

3. Policy 340.3.5 (Standards of Conduct—Performance)

Policy 340.3.5 sets forth numerous ways in which a Department employee’s acts may be deemed
deficient. While a few of these items touch on Sheriff Troyer’s performance indirectly,
340.3.5(s) encapsulates his performance on January 27, 2021.

(s) Any other conduct which any employee knows or reasonably should know is
unbecoming a member of the Department or which is contrary to good order,

19
 efficiency or morale, or which tends to reflect unfavorably upon the Department or its
members.

Based on the foregoing, we also conclude Sheriff Troyer violated Policy 340.3.5.

4. Policy 203 (Department Management)

Policies 203.11 and 13 address standards for how employees are expected engage with the
community they serve. Notably:

203.11 COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Community relations are based upon the principle that in a democratic society, the police
are an integral and indivisible element of the public they serve. Community relations are
manifested by positive interaction between the people and the police, and represents their
unity and common purpose.

***
203.13 ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OFFICER AND EMPLOYEE

In dealing with people, each officer and employee must attempt to make his contact one
which inspires respect for himself as an individual and professional, and one which
generates the cooperation and approval of the public. While entitled to his personal
beliefs, an officer or employee cannot allow his individual feelings or prejudices to enter
into public contacts.

***

Based on the foregoing, we also conclude Sheriff Troyer failed to abide by Policies 203.11 and
.13

B. Violations of Criminal Law

In the Scope of Work, we were asked to address the question of whether Sheriff Troyer violated
any laws, and specifically, any criminal laws. As we noted above, the State Attorney General
was tasked by the Governor with addressing this specific issue and we have their answer to this
question.

On October 19, 2021, Sheriff Troyer was charged criminally with violating RCW 9A.84.040
(False Reporting) and RCW 9A.76.175 (Making a False or Misleading Statement to a Public
Servant). The Attorney General has issued a statement of probable cause to support these charges
and ultimately his office will be held to a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prove
one or both offenses. It would therefore be inappropriate for us to elaborate or comment on this
pending legal matter.
20
 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Disciplinary Consequences

We have been asked to opine, if we did find a violation of any standard, policy or law, what
sanctions might follow any violations if they had been committed by a deputy sheriff. Pierce
County Sheriff Department Policies 339, 340, 341 and 1020 govern the rights and
responsibilities attendant to discipline and standards of conduct by Pierce County Sheriff’s
Department employees. These policies are comprehensive and are designed to address the
handling and disposition of complaints lodged against deputy sheriffs. Relevant here, Policy
339.2 provides that “[a]n employee’s off-duty conduct shall be governed by this policy to the
extent that it is related to act(s) that may materially affect or arise from the employee’s ability to
perform official duties or to the extent that it may be indicative of unfitness for his/her position.”

While comprehensive, there are two things these policies do not address: (1) the kind or degree
of sanction to be imposed when an allegation is deemed founded, or sustained, and
(2) allegations of misconduct committed by the county sheriff. In the absence of any
predetermined penalties in policy, we rely on those factors that a law enforcement employer
would typically rely on in determining an appropriate sanction for misconduct that is sustained.
While not exclusive, these factors include:

1. The employment history of the deputy sheriff, including any instances of prior
sustained misconduct or discipline;

2. The number, nature, and seriousness of the sustained allegations;

3. The impact or potential impact of the misconduct on the department, departmental

employees, and others, including the public;

4. The deputy sheriff’s acceptance of responsibility and remorse and

5. Consideration of any special circumstances that may lessen or increase the

culpability of the employee’s misconduct.

Sheriff Troyer has a long history of service with the Department and his personnel records show
several commendations and few complaints. One complaint was sustained after an extensive
internal affairs review and it related to failing to bring his assigned police car in for regularly
scheduled service for which he was informally counseled.

As reported by the media, and acknowledged by Sheriff Troyer, while one other complaint was
unfounded, he was cautioned in an October 2015 memorandum by then-Sheriff Pastor about
leaving his department vehicle outside a bar all evening. Sheriff Pastor affirmed that there had
21
been no policy violation but directed then detective Troyer to be more aware of how his actions
might appear to the public.

There are three significant parts to the disciplinary analysis we have been asked to address. One,
discussed in detail above, is that Sheriff Troyer gave two versions of important events extremely
close in time—on the 911 call and to Officer Lawless—that are diametrically opposed and
cannot both be true. Thus, we concluded he was either untruthful on the 911 call or he was
untruthful to Officer Lawless who was investigating a potential crime.

Two, Sheriff Troyer exhibited bias in his decision-making. This not only violates PCSD policy,
but it strikes at the very heart of fair and just policing. Finally, Sheriff Troyer’s 911 call created
an all hands, highly emergent, and fluid series of events. The potential for harm to
Mr. Altheimer, responding officers, and the general public was significant.

Being mindful that the range of discipline available to an elected sheriff when disciplining a
deputy lies somewhere on a continuum between no discipline and termination from employment,
we conclude Sheriff Troyer’s conduct, and the results of that conduct, lie at very far end of the
“seriousness” scale of that continuum. Ironically, the appropriate level of discipline would reside
with Sheriff Troyer, the very person whose judgment in these matters has been called into
question.

B. Brady and Criminal Justice Training Commission Referrals

Given the nature of our findings above, we make two additional recommendations. Because we
have concluded that Sheriff Troyer’s versions of events are contradictory as they relate to the
alleged threat to kill, we recommend that the Council provide a copy of this report to Pierce
County Prosecuting Attorney Mary Robnett. Her office may want to determine if Sheriff
Troyer’s conduct should be disclosed as potential impeachment evidence to defense counsel
whenever he is a witness for the prosecution under the holding in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
83 (1963). We are aware the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office has very rigorous protocols for
addressing “Brady” information and it seems appropriate that they do so in this matter. We do
not suggest anything in our report binds that separate and distinct factual and legal
determination; only that their office be apprised of our findings.

In addition, RCW 43.101.105 provides the Washington State Criminal Justice Training
Commission (CJTC) with authority to “suspend, deny, or revoke” a Washington law
enforcement officer’s police commission, and with it, the ability to hold a position as police
officer under certain conditions. We recommend that this report be referred to the CJTC for any
action they deem appropriate.

22
 C. Oversight Recommendations

We were also asked to provide appropriate recommendations for oversight or other procedures
that could prevent or discourage similar misconduct in the future by any person serving as
Sheriff. We are aware of a debate about whether county sheriffs in Washington should be elected
or appointed, and that a July 27, 2021 Pierce County Council vote to put the issue on the ballot
did not pass. Thus, Pierce County voters will continue to elect their sheriff. We have no opinion
about this political question and nothing that follows should be interpreted as commenting on
that question.

Ultimately, while Sheriff Troyer may be above the reach of his department’s disciplinary policies
in terms of its organizational chart, he is not beyond accountability under our state’s laws and
constitution. Noted above, Sheriff Troyer has been charged criminally with False Reporting and
Making a False or Misleading Statement to a Public Servant. If convicted of “any felony or
malfeasance in office” the penalties “shall entail, in addition to such other penalty as may be
imposed, the forfeiture of his or her office, and shall disqualify him or her from ever after
holding any public office in this state.” See RCW 9.92.120 and 42.20. Until his criminal matter is
resolved, it is unknown if Sheriff Troyer will forfeit his office and the ability to hold public
office again.

Of course, an official standing for election must ultimately prevail by majority vote in that
election. As provided for in the Pierce County Charter, Article 5 (The Public Interest), the public
also retains the ability to recall its county elected officials as provided by the constitution and
laws of the State of Washington. Pierce County Charter, Article 5, Section 5.80.

Article I, Section 33 of the state Constitution and Revised Code of Washington, 29A.56.110,
provides for recall of an elected official when there has been a violation of the oath of office,
misfeasance, or malfeasance in the performance of the official’s duties. As in an election, the
recall process allows the public to exercise oversight of its elected officials and on a timeline that
is not tied to an election cycle. Thus, while an elected county sheriff may not be subject to his or
her department’s policies, he or she may still be held accountable for alleged misconduct that
does not require conviction of a certain class of criminal offense.

We readily acknowledge that these various means of accountability are neither swift nor certain.
But because an elected sheriff is essentially “hired” by a majority of the voting public as part of a
political process, it follows that the same should hold true in order for the sheriff to be “fired”
absent conviction of a felony or other crime involving “malfeasance in office.”

23
 VIII. CONCLUSION

Policing is a difficult profession in the best of times and these are not the best of times,
especially when it comes to relations between police and communities of color. In order to do
their jobs, officers are given an extraordinary amount of authority and discretion to exercise that
authority when they interact with the public. In addition to specialized equipment and training
the public provides officers to carry out their duties, the public gives them something even more
important—its’ trust.

The public trusts that police officers will discharge their responsibilities wisely and without bias,
exercise good judgment at all times, not just most times, adhere to the law and their department’s
policies, and be truthful. Sheriff Troyer’s actions on January 27, 2021, and in the incident
involving M.H., also occurring in January 2021, failed to meet these standards.

Had Sheriff Troyer exercised good judgment and followed his department’s policies, he could
have simply remained at home and made a non-emergent call to 911 about his suspicions,
however wrong they ultimately proved to be. But he did not, and as a result, he put others at risk
and fell short of meeting the public’s—and his department’s—expectations of how its employees
should do their jobs.

Ultimately, Sheriff Troyer’s actions will likely be addressed first in the criminal justice setting. If
convicted of a felony or a crime involving malfeasance in office, he could be barred from office.
Outside of the criminal case that is now pending, Sheriff Troyer was elected by the public and
answers to them. It remains to be seen if his lapses in judgment will prevent him from regaining
the public’s trust and what consequences there may be for him personally, and by extension, the
department he was entrusted by voters to lead.

Dated this 26th day of October, 2021

Brian T. Moran Amanda McDowell

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
701 5th Ave., Suite 5600 701 5th Ave., Suite 5600
Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98104

24
ATTACHMENT A
Pierce County Council – Troyer

911 Call Transcript

911: Radio

Troyer: Hey it’s Troyer

911: What can I do for you?

Troyer: I’m at 27 and Deidra in Tacoma in North End, about 2 blocks from my house and I caught
someone in my driveway and he just threatened to kill me and I blocked him in. He’s
here right now.

911: Okay. Go again with your address.

Troyer: Well, my address is I’m at 27th and Diedra. Diedra.

911: Okay

Troyer: And he’s in some sort of gray car and it was in my driveway and my neighbor’s driveway
and he knows who I am and he threatened to kill me and I got him blocked in at 27th and
Diedra.

911: Okay

Troyer: I think his plate is Boy, hang on, Boy, Williams Boy 5 7, hang on, I really need just one or
two people here at first.

911: --Absolutely, I’m getting the call right now---

Troyer: 5, 4, he’s not going to let me leave—

911: Okay, does he have a gun or anything?

Troyer: I have no idea…he looks homeless and his car was in my driveway and I got in my car
and then he was in my neighbor’s driveway and he tried to get into my garage. Hang on,
Boy William Boy 5 8 7 2.

911: Okay

Troyer: Yeah, and so I’ve got him blocked in. I’m in a white Tahoe.

911: Okay

Troyer: It’s my own personal white Tahoe. He’s taking pictures and video of me.

911: Okay. I’ve got units headed your way.

Troyer: I just need one or two real quick. He was in my neighbors’ houses and climbing all over
[inaudible] sorry but—

911: No, you’re good—

1
Troyer: I think they’re coming

911: Alright. Okay, stay on the phone with me though, okay. Just so I can make sure—

Troyer: I don’t want to hang up. I’m trying to back up and let him go but he blocked me right in.

911: Okay. What kind of car is he in?

Troyer: Uhm. I don’t know. Some sort of beat up truck old homeless looking Scion—

911: Okay---

Troyer: I gave you the plate number.

911: Yeah, yeah.

Troyer: [inaudible] I tried to be polite to him and he just says I’m a racist and wants to kill me so.

911: Okay.

Troyer: I don’t want anything other than him to let me, just let me go home. Which is two blocks
away.

911: Right

Troyer: Which is, just came out of my house.

911: Anybody else with him, Chief?

Troyer: No. nope. I’m not mad at him or anything but he needs—

911: —Okay—

Troyer: —I think he might have one of those garage door openers because he pulled into four or
five different houses around the neighborhood and tried to hit the garage door opener
button.

911: Yeah.

Troyer: My house is, I’m doing a remodel, and there’s so much room in the drive, there’s no
room in the driveway and he tried everywhere else. So, he’s looking for me—

911: Okay. Okay.

Troyer: I’m still here. I’m backing up. He’s pushing against my car, so I’m just backing up. 27th
and D—

911: —Yeah, they should be there shortly to you—

Troyer: —Diadra, Diedra.

Troyer: It’s so weird. It’s like one of those like old—

911: —bizarre—

2
Troyer: —Stare-downs. He’s just staring at me with headlights on and—

911: —okay—

Troyer: I’m glad we’re a couple blocks from my house [inaudible] kill me [inaudible]—

911: —yikes. Do you hear, the ah officers?

Troyer: No. I don’t hear anything.

911: You don’t hear—

Troyer: —[inaudible] a couple blocks, two blocks above my house.

911: Okay.

Troyer: He’s taking video and pictures of me. It’s just him alone. It’s so weird.

911: Okay.

Troyer: [Sigh.]

911: Did he give you his name or anything?

Troyer: No just. No, he just said that, you, now, uh, I was home and saw the lights coming in on
out and everything, and I looked and he was like pulling in all of the driveways and I
thought he was one of those guys that’s a kind of a thief that has a garage door opener.

911: Yeah.

Troyer: And so I went out and followed him and he blocked me off and accosted me and said
“You’re a cop” and started threatening me, which is not a big deal, but you know, uh,
that’s part of our deal now, right—

911: —Yeah. Apparently—

Troyer: He literally blocked me in and—

911: —He’s crazy—

Troyer: —here comes the first guy

911: —Okay—

Troyer: —right behind me—

911: —Okay, good

Troyer: Yeah, so the first cop is right there. Yeah. So. Okay.

911: Okay, well if they’re right with you I’ll let you go okay?

Troyer: Thank you—Tacoma’s (inaudible)—

911: —You betcha. Okay great. Thank you—

3
Troyer: —Alright, bye.

4
ATTACHMENT B
 Tacoma Police Department Incident No. 2102700104.1 Page 1 of 4
Incident Report Jurisdiction Agency: Tacoma Police Department

PDA: Homeland Security: Subject: FIR

2102700104.1
Incident No.
IBR Disposition: Not Applicable Case Management
Disposition:
Forensics: Reporting By/Date: T208358 - Lawless, Chad 1/28/2021 04:21:02
Case Report Status: Approved Reviewed By/Date: T04654 - Jepson, Kevin 1/28/2021 04:22:03

Related Cases:
Case Report Number Agency

Non-Electronic Attachments
Attachment Type Additional Distribution Count

Location Address: N 27TH St/Deidra Cir Location Name:

City, State, Zip: Tacoma, WA 98407 Cross Street:
Contact Location: N 27TH St/Deidra Cir City, State, Zip: Tacoma, WA 98407
Recovery Location: City, State, Zip:
CB/Grid/RD: 105 - Tacoma District/Sector: TA24 - Tacoma
Occurred From: 1/27/2021 02:05:00 Occurred To:
Wednesday
Notes:

Offense Details: 8305 - Suspicious Person / Vehicle / Incident / Information (FIR)

Domestic Violence: No Child Abuse: Gang Related: No/Unknown Juvenile:
Completed: Completed Crime Against: Hate/Bias: None (No Bias)
Cargo Theft: Criminal Using:
Activity:
Location Type: Street/Right of Way Type of Security: Tools:
Total No. of Units Evidence Collected:
Entered:
Entrance
Compromised:
Entry Method:
Suspect Description:
Suspect Actions:
Notes:

Other Entity O1: Troyer, Edward PDA:

Aliases:
DOB: Age: 00 Sex: Male Race: White Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic
Height: Weight: Hair Color: Eye Color:

Call Source: Dispatched Assisted By: 209518 - Ventura, Corey

Phone Report: Notified: Sgt. Storwick, Lt. Stark

Insurance Letter: Entered By: T208358 - Lawless, Chad
Entered On: 1/28/2021 03:40:56 Approved By: Automated Policy
Approved On: 1/28/2021 04:23:03 Exceptional Clearance:
Adult/ Juvenile Clearance: Exceptional Clearance Date:
Additional Distribution: Other Distribution:
Validation Processing Distribution Date: 1/28/2021 County Pros. Atty. Juvenile Other CPS Supervisor:
By: AUTOMATED POLICY City Pros. Atty. Military DSHS PreTrial

Records has the authority to ensure correct agency, CB/Grid/RD, and District/Sector are incorporated Printed: 1/28/2021 04:23:03
in the report. Printed By: Automated Policy
Tacoma Police Department Incident Incident No. 2102700104.1 Page 3 of 4
Report
Jurisdiction Agency: Tacoma Police Department

Special Features: Hold Requested By:

Drug Information:
Drug Type: Drug Measure:
Drug Quantity: Drug Measure Type:
Jewelry Information:
Metal Color: Total # of Stones:
Metal Type: Inscription:
Stone Color: Generally Worn By:
Firearm Information:
Caliber: Length:
Gauge: Finish:
Action: Grips:
Importer: Stock:

Property Notes:

Enter Date Time WACIC LESA Initial Release Date Time Release Release
Info. No. Authority
Clear Owner Operators Name
Notified

Investigative Information
Means: Motive:
Vehicle Activity: Direction Vehicle Traveling:

Synopsis:

Narrative: On 1/27/2021 I was working a two man fully marked patrol unit for the Tacoma Police Department
with my partner, PPO Ventura. We were both wearing our issued Tacoma Police Department uniforms that
identify us as police officers.

At approximately 0205 hours, we responded to the report of a help the officer call at N. 27th and
Deidra Circle. The caller, O1/TROYER, reported that he was at the listed location and he was reporting that a
subject was making threats to kill him. O1/TROYER reported that he was in his personal vehicle (white
Tahoe) and that he had the subject blocked in.

This call was dispatched at the highest priority and it was broadcasted to all SS911 agencies. Over
40 officers, deputies and troopers responded to the call.

PPO Ventura and I arrived first and located a turquoise Geo Prism (WA/BWB5872) parked in the
middle of the street facing E/B in front of 6925 N. 27th St. The vehicle was occupied by a black male who
was later identified as O2/ALTHEIMER. O2/ALTHEIMER also showed to be the registered owner of the
vehicle. The back seat of the vehicle was filled with newspapers.

O1/TROYER was seated in a white Chevy Tahoe that was parked in the middle of the street facing
the Geo Prism. The vehicles were approximately 50 feet apart but both in the middle of the street.

O2/ALTHEIMER was upset and shouted at officers as we made contact with him. He ranted," I'm a
black man in a white neighborhood" and he commented on the number of officers that arrived on the scene.

PPO Ventura contacted O2/ALTHEIMER and asked him to step out of the vehicle. O2/ALTHEIMER
reluctantly complied and he was escorted to our nearby patrol vehicle. PPO Ventura conducted a frisk for
weapons that met with negative results. PPO Ventura used interview skills to de-escalate the situation and
obtain a statement from O2/ALTHEIMER about what had happened.

Printed: 1/28/2021 04:23:03

Printed By: Automated Policy
Tacoma Police Department Incident Incident No. 2102700104.1 Page 4 of 4
Report
Jurisdiction Agency: Tacoma Police Department

PPO Ventura learned that O2/ALTHEIMER is a newspaper carrier who works in the area six days a
week. O2/ALTHEIMER described that he was delivering papers when he believed he was being followed by
O1/TROYER. He advised that O1/TROYER followed him as he delivered papers and questioned him as to
what he was doing and where he was. O2/ALTHEIMER ranted that he did not feel like he needed to answer
O1/TROYER's questions and he acknowledged that he knew who O1/TROYER was. When asked,
O2/ALTHEIMER repeatedly denied that he made any threats towards O1/TROYER and he just wanted to
finish his paper route.

I spoke with O1/TROYER and asked him to explain to me what happened. O1/TROYER advised that
he was home asleep when he heard something outside. He observed O2/ALTHEIMER driving his vehicle in
and out of driveways in the neighborhood. O1/TROYER described that he got into his personal vehicle and
attempted to make contact with O2/ALTHEIMER and talk to him.

I specifically asked O1/TROYER if O2/ALTHEIMER ever made any threats towards him or displayed
any weapons. O1/TROYER advised that O2/ALTHEIMER never threatened him and he did not observe
O2/ALTHEIMER with any weapons. O1/TROYER described that when he confronted O2/ALTHEIMER at the
listed address it was clear he," wanted to fight."

I informed O1/TROYER that O2/ALTHEIMER appeared to be a newspaper carrier and he was on his
regular route. O1/TROYER advised that we should let him go if that was the case.

Sgt. Storwick arrived at the scene and I briefed him on the situation. I explained that there was no
articulable crime that had occurred and that I was going to release O2/ALTHEIMER to continue his work. He
agreed and O2/ALTHEIMER was released from the scene. O1/TROYER was also released from the scene
as there was no articulable crime that had occurred.

Lt. Stark arrived at the scene and he was briefed on the situation by Sgt. Storwick.

In the rush to respond to an officer needs help call, I mistakenly left my BWC on the charger at the 2
sector sub station. I realized once on scene that I had forgotten my BWC and I advised Sgt. Storwick when
he arrived at the scene. PPO Ventura did use his BWC at the scene.

Nothing further. Lawless 208358

Reviewed By: Reviewed Date:

Printed: 1/28/2021 04:23:03

Printed By: Automated Policy
ATTACHMENT C
 Tacoma Police Department Incident No. 2031601845.1 Page 1 of 9
Incident Report Jurisdiction Agency: Tacoma Police Department

PDA: Yes Homeland Security: Subject: Vehicle Prowl

2031601845.1
Incident No.
IBR Disposition: Active Case Management
Disposition:
Forensics: Forensics Reporting By/Date: T212434 - Pinkerton, Zoe 3/23/2021 20:19:30
Responded
Case Report Status: Approved Reviewed By/Date: T202504 - Mills, Jason 3/23/2021 20:22:16

Related Cases:
Case Report Number Agency

Non-Electronic Attachments
Attachment Type Additional Distribution Count

Location Address: 2515 N Stevens St Location Name:

City, State, Zip: Tacoma, WA 98406 Cross Street:
Contact Location: City, State, Zip:
Recovery Location: City, State, Zip:
CB/Grid/RD: 122 - Tacoma District/Sector: TA24 - Tacoma
Occurred From: 11/11/2020 22:22:00 Occurred To:
Wednesday
Notes:

Offense Details: 2305 - Theft - From Motor Vehicle - Vehicle Prowl

Domestic Violence: No Child Abuse: Gang Related: No/Unknown Juvenile:
Completed: Completed Crime Against: PR Hate/Bias: None (No Bias)
Cargo Theft: No Criminal Using:
Activity:
Location Type: Other Business Type of Security: Tools:
Total No. of Units Evidence Collected:
Entered:
Entrance
Compromised:
Entry Method:
Suspect Description:
Suspect Actions:
Notes:

Suspect S1: Suspect, Unknown Verified: No PDA:

Aliases:
DOB: Age: 20 Sex: Male Race: Black Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic

Call Source: Assisted By: 214364 - Morse, Matthew

Phone Report: Notified: SGT MILLS

Insurance Letter: Entered By: T212434 - Pinkerton, Zoe
Entered On: 3/23/2021 15:12:07 Approved By: Automated Policy
Approved On: 3/23/2021 20:23:02 Exceptional Clearance:
Adult/ Juvenile Clearance: Exceptional Clearance Date:
Additional Distribution: Other Distr bution:
Validation Processing Distr bution Date: 3/23/2021 County Pros. Atty. Juvenile Other CPS Supervisor:
By: AUTOMATED POLICY City Pros. Atty. Military DSHS PreTrial

Records has the authority to ensure correct agency, CB/Grid/RD, and District/Sector are incorporated Printed: 3/23/2021 20:23:02
in the report. Printed By: Automated Policy
Tacoma Police Department Incident Incident No. 2031601845.1 Page 2 of 9
Report
Jurisdiction Agency: Tacoma Police Department

Height: Weight: Hair Color: Eye Color:

Address: Unknown County: Phone:
City, State Zip: Country: Business Phone:
Other Address: Other Phone:
Resident: Unknown Occupation/Grade: Employer/School:
SSN: DOC No: FBI No:
State ID: Local CH No:
Driver License No: Driver License Driver License
State: Country:
Hair Length: Glasses: Facial Hair:
Hair Style: Teeth: Facial Shape:
Hair Type: Speech: Complexion:
Appearance: Right/Left Handed: Facial Feature
Oddities:
SMT: TATTOOS ON ARMS Distinctive Features:
Attire: DARK CLOTHING, HOODY Body Build:
Gangs: Tribe Affiliation:
Significant Identifiers:
Trademarks:
Suspect Pretended Modus Operandi:
to Be:
Place of Birth: Habitual Offender: Custody Status:
Type of Injury: Fire Dept Hospital Taken To:
Response:
Medical Release Taken By: Attending Physician:
Obtained:
Hold Placed By: Suspect Offense: 2305 - Theft - From Motor Vehicle - Vehicle Prowl
Presence of / Unknown
Access to Firearms:
Suspect Notes:

Suspect S2: Suspect, Unknown Verified: No PDA:

Aliases:
DOB: Age: 20 Sex: Male Race: Black Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic
Height: Weight: Hair Color: Eye Color:
Address: Unknown County: Phone:
City, State Zip: Country: Business Phone:
Other Address: Other Phone:
Resident: Unknown Occupation/Grade: Employer/School:
SSN: DOC No: FBI No:
State ID: Local CH No:
Driver License No: Driver License Driver License
State: Country:
Hair Length: Glasses: Facial Hair:
Hair Style: Teeth: Facial Shape:
Hair Type: Speech: Complexion:
Appearance: Right/Left Handed: Facial Feature
Oddities:
SMT: Distinctive Features:
Attire: DARK CLOTHING, HOODY Body Build:
Gangs: Tribe Affiliation:
Significant Identifiers:
Trademarks:
Suspect Pretended Modus Operandi:
to Be:

Printed: 3/23/2021 20:23:02

Printed By: Automated Policy
 Tacoma Police Department Incident Incident No. 2031601845.1 Page 3 of 9
Report
Jurisdiction Agency: Tacoma Police Department

Place of Birth: Habitual Offender: Custody Status:

Type of Injury: Fire Dept Hospital Taken To:
Response:
Medical Release Taken By: Attending Physician:
Obtained:
Hold Placed By: Suspect Offense: 2305 - Theft - From Motor Vehicle - Vehicle Prowl
Presence of / Unknown
Access to Firearms:
Suspect Notes:

Victim V1: Witness PDA: Yes

Aliases:
DOB: Witness Age: 59 Sex: Male Race: White Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic
Height: Weight: Hair Color: Eye Color:
Address: Witness County: Phone: Witness
City, State Zip: Witness Country: Business Phone:
Other Address: Other Phone:
Resident: Full - Time Resident Occupation/Grade: Employer/School:
SSN: Place of Birth:
Driver License No: Driver License Driver License
State: Country:
Attire: Complexion:
SMT: Facial Hair:
Victim Of: 2305 - Theft - From Motor Vehicle - Vehicle Prowl Facial Shape:
Victim Type: Individual Circumstances: Weapon Used:
Injury: Testify: Reporting Statement
Obtained:
Type of Injury: Fire Dept Response:
Hospital Taken To: Medical Release Taken By:
Obtained:
Attending Physician: Hold Placed By:

Victim Offender Relationships

Offender: Relationship:
S1 - Suspect, Unknown Relationship Unknown
S2 - Suspect, Unknown Relationship Unknown

Law Type: Justifiable Homicide

Enforcement Assignment: Circumstances:
Officer Killed or
Assaulted Activity:
Information

Victim Notes:

Victim V2: Witness PDA: Yes

Aliases:
DOB: Witness Age: 60 Sex: Female Race: White Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic
Height: Weight: Hair Color: Eye Color:
Address: Witness County: Phone: Witness
City, State Zip: Witness Country: Business Phone:
Other Address: Other Phone:
Resident: Full - Time Resident Occupation/Grade: Employer/School:
SSN: Place of Birth:
Driver License No: Driver License Driver License
State: Country:
Attire: Complexion:

Printed: 3/23/2021 20:23:02

Printed By: Automated Policy
 Tacoma Police Department Incident Incident No. 2031601845.1 Page 4 of 9
Report
Jurisdiction Agency: Tacoma Police Department

SMT: Facial Hair:

Victim Of: 2305 - Theft - From Motor Vehicle - Vehicle Prowl Facial Shape:
Victim Type: Individual Circumstances: Weapon Used:
Injury: Testify: Reporting Statement
Obtained:
Type of Injury: Fire Dept Response:
Hospital Taken To: Medical Release Taken By:
Obtained:
Attending Physician: Hold Placed By:

Victim Offender Relationships

Offender: Relationship:
S1 - Suspect, Unknown Relationship Unknown
S2 - Suspect, Unknown Relationship Unknown

Law Type: Justifiable Homicide

Enforcement Assignment: Circumstances:
Officer Killed or
Assaulted Activity:
Information

Victim Notes:

Other Entity O1: Young, Robert Henry PDA:

Aliases:
DOB: 6/9/1968 Age: 52 Sex: Male Race: Black Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic
Height: 6' 0" Weight: 175 Hair Color: Eye Color: Brown
Address: 14117 C St S Apt Dd County: Phone:
City, State Zip: Tacoma, WA 98444-7233 Country: Business Phone:
Other Address: Other Phone:
Resident: Full - Time Resident Occupation/Grade: Employer/School:
SSN: Place Of Birth:
Driver License No: DOLDOLDOL Driver License Washington Driver License
State: Country:
Attire: Complexion:
SMT: Facial Hair:
Entity Type: Vehicle Registered Reporting Statement Facial Shape:
Obtained:
Owner
Entity Notes:

Property Item No. 1/1: 3501 - Vehicle - Automobile / Car (Not Stolen Or Recovered)
Other Common Item: Photographed:
Description: Fingerprinted:
Quantity: 1 Contents Sampled:
Finding Location: Owner: O1 - Young, Robert Henry
Status: U - Used In The Crime Value:
Recovered Date: Make/Brand:
Recovered Value: Model:
Field Tested: Serial No:
Field Test Results: OAN:
Property Disposition: Insurance Company:
Disposition Location: Policy No:
Vehicle Information:
License: BUY4599 Locked:
License State: Washington Keys in Vehicle:

Printed: 3/23/2021 20:23:02

Printed By: Automated Policy
Tacoma Police Department Incident Incident No. 2031601845.1 Page 5 of 9
Report
Jurisdiction Agency: Tacoma Police Department

License Country: USA Delinquent Payment:

Vehicle Year: 1999 Victim Consent:
Make: Honda Drivable:
Model: Accord Estimated Damage:
Vehicle Style: 4 Door Automobile, sedan Damage:
Primary Vehicle Color: Silver / Aluminum Damaged Area:
Secondary Vehicle Color: Tow Company:
VIN: 1HGCG1656XA053941 Tow Consent:
Special Features: Hold Requested By:
Drug Information:
Drug Type: Drug Measure:
Drug Quantity: Drug Measure Type:
Jewelry Information:
Metal Color: Total # of Stones:
Metal Type: Inscription:
Stone Color: Generally Worn By:
Firearm Information:
Caliber: Length:
Gauge: Finish:
Action: Grips:
Importer: Stock:

Property Notes:

Enter Date Time WACIC LESA Initial Release Date Time Release Release
Info. No. Authority
Clear Owner Operators Name
Notified

Property Item No. 2/2: 3501 - Vehicle - Automobile / Car (Not Stolen Or Recovered)
Other Common Item: Photographed:
Description: Fingerprinted:
Quantity: 1 Contents Sampled:
Finding Location: Owner: V1 - Witness
Status: I - Information Only Value: 20000
Recovered Date: Make/Brand:
Recovered Value: Model:
Field Tested: Serial No:
Field Test Results: OAN:
Property Disposition: Released to Victim Insurance Company:
Disposition Location: Policy No:
Vehicle Information:
License: BLG6089 Locked:
License State: Washington Keys in Vehicle:
License Country: USA Delinquent Payment:
Vehicle Year: 2017 Victim Consent:
Make: General Motors Corp. Drivable:
Model: Yukon Estimated Damage:
Vehicle Style: Carry-all / SUV Damage:
Primary Vehicle Color: White Damaged Area:
Secondary Vehicle Color: Tow Company:
VIN: 1GKS2GKC5HR384355 Tow Consent:
Special Features: Hold Requested By:

Printed: 3/23/2021 20:23:02

Printed By: Automated Policy
 Tacoma Police Department Incident Incident No. 2031601845.1 Page 6 of 9
Report
Jurisdiction Agency: Tacoma Police Department

Drug Information:
Drug Type: Drug Measure:
Drug Quantity: Drug Measure Type:
Jewelry Information:
Metal Color: Total # of Stones:
Metal Type: Inscription:
Stone Color: Generally Worn By:
Firearm Information:
Caliber: Length:
Gauge: Finish:
Action: Grips:
Importer: Stock:

Property Notes:

Enter Date Time WACIC LESA Initial Release Date Time Release Release
Info. No. Authority
Clear Owner Operators Name
Notified

Property Item No. 3/3: 3002 - Personal - Wallet

Other Common Item: Photographed:
Description: Fingerprinted:
Quantity: 1 Contents Sampled:
Finding Location: Owner: V2 - Witness
Status: B - Both Stolen And Recovered (Also Value: 50
Use To Update Own Agency Previous
Stolen)
Recovered Date: 11/11/2020 Make/Brand:
Recovered Value: 50 Model:
Field Tested: Serial No:
Field Test Results: OAN:
Property Disposition: Released to Victim Insurance Company:
Disposition Location: Policy No:
Vehicle Information:
License: Locked:
License State: Keys in Vehicle:
License Country: Delinquent Payment:
Vehicle Year: Victim Consent:
Make: Drivable:
Model: Estimated Damage:
Vehicle Style: Damage:
Primary Vehicle Color: Damaged Area:
Secondary Vehicle Color: Tow Company:
VIN: Tow Consent:
Special Features: Hold Requested By:
Drug Information:
Drug Type: Drug Measure:
Drug Quantity: Drug Measure Type:
Jewelry Information:
Metal Color: Total # of Stones:
Metal Type: Inscription:
Stone Color: Generally Worn By:

Printed: 3/23/2021 20:23:02

Printed By: Automated Policy
Tacoma Police Department Incident Incident No. 2031601845.1 Page 9 of 9
Report
Jurisdiction Agency: Tacoma Police Department

time it was retrieved by V1/ Witness but while waiting for law enforcement to arrive she thoroughly
inventoried her wallet and determined that no items were stolen out of it. When asked to describe the
suspects in the vehicle she states she was "trying to take a picture of them but they were covering their
faces". When asked to clarify she states one subject was holding a jacket or coat in front of his face and the
other was holding a cell phone in front of his face. When asked if any physical altercation occurred or any
threats made she states no physical altercation occurred nor were any threats made.

A WACIC search of the suspect vehicle (WA #BUY4599) returns to a silver 1999 Honda Accord 4
door sedan registered to an address out of University Place, WA. It should be noted after a WACIC search
of the registered owner, O/YOUNG, ROBERT H, it is unlikely he was involved in the incident as the suspects
were described to be in their "late teens or early 20's" and he has a DOB of 1968.

V1/ Witness was provided with the original incident number for his records and advised to call
when the USB flash drive containing video surveillance was ready to be picked up.

Sgt Mills was advised of the outcome.

*Quotes may not be completely accurate- quoted to the best of my knowledge from conversations
had with parties involved.*

Nothing further to report at this time.

Reviewed By: Reviewed Date:

Printed: 3/23/2021 20:23:02

Printed By: Automated Policy