Post by WaTcHeR on Nov 7, 2006 13:53:06 GMT -5
Officer Clarence “Andrew” Young
11.07.2006 - The case of a Vancouver Police Department officer who was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol but never prosecuted took more strange twists on Friday.
That’s when it was revealed the arrest report, by mistake, wasn’t sent to the state Department of Licensing within 72 hours, as required for licensing officials to consider suspending Officer Clarence “Andrew” Young’s driver’s license.
So, even though Young refused to take field sobriety or alcohol breath tests during his DUI arrest, his license was never in any danger of being suspended or revoked, as normally happens during such cases.
Clark County Sheriff’s Sgt. Tony Barnes, who arrested Young after an Aug. 5 traffic stop, said Friday he had “no idea” that sheriff’s records clerks had failed to send his sworn statement to the licensing department, as is routinely done.
“It’s extremely rare,” Barnes said, adding: “I’ve heard other deputies complain that’s happened before.”
Barnes said such a thing could happen because of the complexity of records employees’ jobs.
So far this year, the two-agency records unit has handled about 37,000 reports written by officers with the sheriff’s office and Vancouver Police Department.
Sheriff Garry Lucas said Friday he’d just learned of the situation. He said he’d never heard of such a failure, although that sort of detail wouldn’t normally be forwarded to him.
Lucas said he was told a new records clerk was responsible for the error, and that he believes that’s what happened.
“People make mistakes, and particularly people in training make mistakes,” Lucas said. He said no one in his department intervened to prevent the report from being sent to the DOL.
“Why would we?” he said.
Young, who was placed on paid administrative leave after the arrest, returned to his job Oct. 9 and is working as a patrolman.
After the arrest, a deputy prosecutor declined to file the DUI charge, citing insufficient evidence.
With no evidence from sobriety tests or an alcohol breath test, about all that was left was that two officers reported smelling alcohol on Young and two didn’t; and that he’d allegedly been speeding.
Friday’s disclosure that the DUI statement wasn’t sent to the licensing department also involved a reversal on the part of licensing officials.
DOL spokespersons Alyson Chase and Brad Benfield, during weeks of conversations with The Columbian about Young’s case, had said information about license hearings couldn’t be released to the public.
Thursday, at an attorney’s suggestion, The Columbian asked Benfield to cite the section of state law that says such information isn’t public.
Friday morning, after KATU TV reporter Bob Heye sent a written public records request to the licensing officials for Young’s hearing information, the officials changed their stance and said it’s public.
The officials faxed Heye a letter their department had sent to Young and his attorney, Jon McMullen, on Sept. 26.
McMullen had requested a hearing with the DOL about whether his client’s driver’s license should be suspended for refusing to take the alcohol breath test.
The letter says: “The Department of Licensing did not receive a sworn report from the arresting officer. At this time the administrative hearing will not be necessary.”
In addition, the letter says that the $200 fee Young paid for his hearing request will be refunded.
It adds, “This letter is an authorization for you to apply for a driver’s license duplicate or renewal.”
In another issue, the arrest report said two sheriff’s reserve deputies pulled the off-duty Young over because he was driving 61 mph in a 40 mph zone, but they didn’t give Young a speeding ticket.
Asked about that Friday, Lucas said that’s often done when someone is arrested for a serious violation such as DUI.
“We have instructions from the prosecuting attorney’s office not to include those lesser offenses because it may create a double-jeopardy issue,” Lucas said.
Barnes said that deputies still have the option of sending Young a speeding ticket up to one year after the incident.
Vancouver Police spokeswoman Kim Kapp said an internal investigation of whether Young violated department policies has not been completed.
www.columbian.com/news/localNews/11032006news73331.cfm