Political campaigns, as they should be, are the presentation of the values and priorities of our candidates and the ability of every voter to make a decision about who will best serve their shared values and best serve the community in a position of leadership. I find myself now responding to “mudslinging” as my opponent has made and implied allegations against me which he absolutely knows to be false.
What is your response to allegations that you have lied and are on the “Brady list”?
This has been misrepresented and is inaccurate. Sheriff Garrett notified the DA he was investigating me for an allegation of untruthfulness and then, after rigorous investigations, followed up that I was not found to have been untruthful. (see email here)
What happened?
I achieved success in my career right up until 2015 when I applied and excelled in the lieutenant promotion panel. When I was ranked #1 on the Lieutenant promotion list with 2 openings to be filled in the coming months, I suddenly found myself mired in accusations of wrongdoing for the first time in my career.
Though I know I am not perfect, I have worked hard my entire life despite many obstacles encountered. My integrity and ethics are my most treasured asset along side my undying work ethic. In my career, I have never committed a crime and never intentionally committed a violation. I also very much support the idea and practice that if anybody is concerned about something, even seemingly minor, a report should be made and an investigation completed. This is the only way to ensure accountability and compliance.
While I defended myself against these allegations, I was passed over for promotion outside the procedure set by county policy for promotional process. Instead 2 men below me on the list were promoted. The named commander had his ideal team in mind and did not want to have to promote me into one of the positions. In response to a complaint I filed, the sheriff’s office wrote that the commander had recommended two men below me on the list for promotion. It was that same commander who initiated a second investigation against me during that time.
A clear intent:
When I was first advised of an investigation, I felt confident all evidence would be evaluated and a fair finding reached. I was still idealistic about the integrity of all investigators and their quest to find the facts to further fair and equitable accountability. Sadly, I learned this is not always the case. While defending myself against these allegations, I did not have all of the information I now know to have occurred.
However, I learned in this case, this investigator sought only to find evidence of guilt for anything possible and was willing to go to any lengths to have charges filed against me. Specifically, the criminal report written by the Marion County investigator contained 72 separate and distinct false claims, demonstrating misuse of his authority in an attempt to build probable cause where none existed. Each of those instances is directly refuted in the transcribed and recorded interviews he conducted himself.
The report he submitted to the Washington County District Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s Office were the basis for serious criminal allegations and then internal violation against which I was left to single-handedly defend myself. These deliberate misrepresented and mischaracterized witness statements range from small to central to the accusations.
Just a few examples of 72 inaccuracies contained in this inexplicable criminal report are:
Alleging I witnessed the theft in Target and failed to act before she left the store, constituting Official Misconduct when all interviews and evidence were clear I did not even suspect it until at the vehicle and then was still a little uncertain. The allegation that I stated in any interview that I witnessed the theft or was aware of items hidden under her belongings or that dad stated such in his interview is completely false. That does not exist in any of our interviews. My text messages at the time, which he had copies of, clearly indicate I suspected it at the vehicle after leaving the store.
Alleging that FOUR separate witnesses who are not related to each other and, of which two were NOT in the courtroom at the time of the topic all stated the judge said the same thing, which in fact the judge never said. In the two interviews the investigator recorded, the named witnesses said no such thing. In one he did not record (the DHS worker), she was never in the courtroom as she was a witness waiting in the lobby and was released without testimony. The 4th witness, who also was not recorded, did not arrive until after the topic was discussed for which I have text messages from her telling me she is running late and indicating the time when she texts, “I’m here.” Again, I had to purchase my own evidence to clear this. I purchased the court audio records, which show I personally never addressed the court except in a break to ask if I could excuse witnesses, although the investigator often says I did in his report. It shows the statement the investigator reports FOUR witnesses all said was never said by the judge. I also have the text messages showing time of arrival of one witness falling after the below portion. The audio also supports that the remaining witness was not in the courtroom when you hear me ask if I can excuse her and then hear me open the court door to exit and do so. The investigator reported all 4 witnesses independently said myself or dad told the judge about the theft incident, explaining why mom should not have “more” parenting time. He reported they all said the judge asked if it had been investigated by the police and then replied he did not want to hear another thing about it until it was investigated by the police. The judge’s entire dialogue concerning the matter is pictured below, and is not consistent with what the investigator reported all 4 witnesses said. He recommended a felony charge of coercion against me.
The investigator made up a story in his head and then falsely wrote FOUR witnesses all said his story line. The investigator submitted this official criminal report and testified to a grand jury the “facts” in his report to support attempts to charge me with felony charges to include coercion, kidnapping, theft, and official misconduct.
Alleging he called me on 2 dates and left several voice mails before I called him back. My phone records clearly show NO calls from him that entire month, excepting a single call from him on the date and time he says I returned his call. He called me once, I answered. It makes no sense whatsoever to include this easily refuted false statement but to imply I was avoiding contact. Though small, it is one of 72 complete fabrications in his report which has been used against me criminally and internally as well as continues to be referenced as “investigative material” in releases about the incident.
I have been cleared of all criminal investigations and many of the policy violation investigations. I have been found guilty of some policy violations based on generalized findings of conduct that could have brought discredit to the office and subjective findings of violations of the intent of some policies. I accepted most of these finding because I believe in sworn officers being held to a high standard regardless of good intentions. Following resolution of all investigations, I returned to work in my same rank and position.
But what I learned during and after these investigations, changed me forever. I now understand first hand the absolute importance and responsibility of complete, unbiased, and ethical investigations with no regard for the preconceived notions and biases of those conducting the investigations! Investigators are the stewards of justice and should never abuse that power.
I learned individuals in the sheriff’s office had preconceived notions about my intentions and acted to heavily influence the investigators to include making blatantly false accusations. In turn, the investigator wrote a criminal report to recommend charges that was largely his own opinion and contained dozens and dozens of absolute fabrications. I had to discover and obtain (purchase) all exculpatory facts and evidence myself.
CLICK BELOW TO SEE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS
Only after this investigation did I learn of an inappropriate and undue influence by an “unnamed officer” who told the witnesses incorrect information just prior to their recorded interviews with the assigned investigator. Though HPD admits an officer spoke with the witnesses and is not included in any report, they deny that it had any influence on the witnesses perceptions or responses.
From a security witness interview (breaks in speech are as spoken) ~“….. until I found out what was really going on.” “Erica was – Red subpoenaed….subpoena in quotes.” “Erica told me that Red, like sort of what was really….she found out…she wasn’t supposed to be investigating anything at all and then all that stuff. And then that’s when Officer, what’s his name, Kelsey came in to interview us.” “….which I found out by the officer who came and talked to me before Kelsey.”
Background Information:
This incident involves personal family matters including other parties. I made every effort to remove identifying references to other non-public parties. In October of 2014, a cousin (who I will refer to here as “dad”) and his wife (who I will refer to here as “mom”) separated and started divorce proceedings. Their child was nearly 3, and they were a young couple. By late December, conflicts had risen considerably, and I offered to help them both in navigating the process as they could not afford attorneys. Later in the investigation and in the news article, I am repeatedly assumed to be and accused of attempting to engage in or influence a “custody battle” between them. This is antithesis to my beliefs on co-parenting and my own practices with my children’s father and did not happen. I have attached an email I sent them during this time which demonstrates my beliefs and my actions. (see email from me to them about my intent and guidance) The divorce was finalized in May 2015.
In July 2015, mom gave birth to an infant who tested positive for 5 drugs. DHS took custody while the infant underwent withdrawal therapy in the hospital. In addition, DHS notified dad their 3 year old child could not be with mom alone. On July 17, 2015 the court signed an order only allowing mom supervised visits with their child as decided by dad. I agreed to supervise those visits in hopes the child, now 3, would be minimally impacted. This order shows mom only had supervised visits as determined by dad, and thus allegations I or we were trying to take time away from her could not be true.
Meanwhile, I learned the infant was discharged from the hospital into stranger foster care. Due to my own experiences in foster care as a child, I felt strongly the infant should be with a family member. When I learned mom’s family was not able to take her, I agreed to foster her while mom worked on her addiction. In August, I took 30 days parental leave while continuing to work from home. DHS coordinated all matters for the infant while I continued to supervise visits for her older child.
The incident:
On 9/11/15, I supervised a visit for mom at Target and Ross where she chose to shop with her child. When we exited Target, I saw something that made me suspect she may have shoplifted. I was not certain. I had to quickly decide what to do given my responsibility was the safety and well-being of the 3 year old with us. I decided to text someone to contact Target security while I continued on to Ross with mom. I described ourselves and texted I was “85% sure” based on seeing her move clothing from the cart into the store bag while she was placing items into my car. Despite trying to stall for 45 minutes, Target was not able to confirm that quickly. I relayed that I would return with the suspected items as soon as I took mom and child to their homes. I did so immediately. I then spent 1 1/2 hours sitting in the store customer service area while a newer employee tried to figure out what may have been stolen and what was likely purchased. He could not figure it out. He advised me he would have the security manager call me the next day.
See summary of the incident and interviews here. Though I never requested a report nor video, the manager offered me one when she left me a message the following day. I explained I did not want to be the supervisor of visits any longer given that incident and that there was a hearing the following week. DHS had emailed dad and mom (as they did not have attorneys) about how the worker (regarding the older child not in DHS custody) would need to be subpoenaed for the hearing even though they would be there for the infant. Since this was occurring, I asked the security manager if she would be able to testify as to shoplifting occurring at the store with the child present. She agreed, and I brought her a subpoena as well which I picked up from the court.
In October, I was notified it was believed I may have used my position for personal benefit (to obtain a report and video). I was investigated for that. The DA found that although the security staff expressed confusion about whether I was acting officially or not, I had not intended to purport I was acting officially and had sent at least one text clarifying it was not for a criminal matter. The bracketed portion in the text quoted indicates a description by the security manager (as I had subpoenaed her with her consent).
Security Manager Interview ~ “Did she tell you this was a personal matter or did she tell you this was a Washington County matter, or neither way was identified?” “Yah, she didn’t identify. She just said she was, that she was looking into it because she was the one supervising the visit and she didn’t want to be involved with supervising visits for someone who would be breaking the law or could be. She was curious about what really happened and wanted to know what was paid for and what was not paid for.”
Next, the sheriff’s office investigated me for policy violations and found I did not violate the uniform policy but had violated a policy which prohibits any conduct which could discredit the sheriff’s office. Despite having no intention of creating confusion and trying to be very clear about my position, I accepted this finding because I believe the higher responsibility lies with sworn officers.
The WCSO investigator told me I should have arrested mom when I believed she shoplifted as probable cause arrest only requires “more likely than not,” and I had indicated an 85% confidence. He also said absent that, I should have called HPD rather than Target security. When I explained my greater concern was the safety and impact to the child, while still knowing I could resolve the theft matter after the visit, he told me I was naive. I still disagree with this assessment and would not expose the child to those options given the same set of circumstances. Later in the 2nd investigation, the investigator writes in his report I allowed the theft to occur and witnessed it inside the store yet did nothing about it. There is no witness statements or evidence to support this complete supposition which he reported to the DA, recommending a charge of Official Misconduct for “allowing” mom to steal while I was with her.
On 1/11/16, I was advised I was under investigation again. I had met with Lt. Frohnert who asked me about a delay in the time of release for “mom” (same person as above). I explained to him she had been attempting to contact her listed victim in a Felony Domestic Violence case but was set to be released the following day. She had been making arrangements for a family member to have her victim connect with her on the family member’s phone because his phone was automatically blocked by the phone system as a listed victim.
Because of the jail rule violation combined with the pending release, I documented on her 5 x 8 (an internal booking tracking record) to release by “20:00 hrs” which is 8 p.m. on her release date. I explained I had indicated 20:00 because she was serving a 2 day or 48 hour sentence which should have been completed between 3 and 5 p.m. She had been arrested on Sunday 1/3/15 and arraigned as well as sentenced on an existing warrant on Monday 1/4/15. I became aware of the attempted victim contact on 1/5/15 and verified she had signed a standard domestic violence victim contact prohibition form, which also prohibits attempted contact. She was due to be released on 1/6/15. My other option was to implement a 24 hour lock-down. However, the DV charge was “no complainted” that afternoon (when the DA does not file the criminal charge(s) after reviewing the report), which reduces the seriousness of the rule violation (as it is no longer a criminal act as well). Locking her down would have restricted her from all privileges for the remainder of her custody. I felt moving her release to the end of the day’s court releases (which typically occur between 5 and 8 p.m.) and not interfering with her custody privileges was sufficient for the attempt jail rule violation.
Because she was in custody on the DV charge when she was sentenced for an existing warrant, the time she should have gone to court was the afternoon (in custody arraignment times begin at 3 p.m.). Sentencing orders do not have a time of court proceeding on them nor do they indicate a time of release. I later learned she had gone to court at 8:30 a.m. A witness from the court team told the investigator she should have been on the “docker” as an in custody defendant, appearing in court at 3 p.m., and she didn’t know why she had court at 8:30 a.m. with out of custody defendants instead. Because of this anomaly, instead of delaying her time of release (no delay in release date) about 3 hours as intended, I had inadvertently delayed her release time by about 12 hours.
When an inmate is due to be released for completion of a sentence, the time of day of release is at complete discretion of the institution and is not set by the court order (except in cases where a time of release is specified, which is not common). The time of day of release can vary for any number of reasons, although each day all inmates due to be “time served” are generally released in the morning for operational reasons. As you might imagine, there have been inmates who know they are being released who then take the opportunity to act out behaviorally with the knowledge staff have little recourse as the formal discipline process takes days to a week or more to implement. Therefore, it has not been uncommon prior to this time, to delay release time for behavioral reasons. An inmate can legally be released on their date of release between 12:01 a.m. and 11:59 p.m. However, holding an inmate beyond midnight to another date after their scheduled release date without good cause would be a potential constitutional violation. That did not occur in this case.
I had spent 7 weeks on leave just 6 weeks prior for the above investigation. During and after the investigation, I ceased any contact with mom. During that time, I had learned she had made reports to both Hillsboro Police Department and the sheriff’s office alleging random allegations against me. These were quickly cleared as they included things like alleging telephonic harassment when phone records showed I never called her a single time. However, with the stress of feeling like my career was in jeopardy during the investigation and my knowledge she was now deep into an opiate addiction and angry and willing to make false allegations against me, I feared she would make additional allegations while in custody. I reviewed the policy for listening to inmate phone calls to ensure I was not prohibited from doing so. The policy states:
I, and other jail staff routinely listen to phone calls as required for safety and security as well as to aid in investigations and discover concerns or safety issues. In hindsight, I know the fact I felt the need to verify the language of the policy to assure myself it was not a policy violation, should have been enough for me to not listen to her calls. I did so anyways, convincing myself it was not a policy violation and would only help me to know if she would be making additional false allegations against me. I would not make that same choice again. Despite the “letter” of the policy, I agree my decision to listen for reasons related to my own personal fears was unacceptable. I told Lt. Frohnert in my initial conversation with me that I listened to her calls and why. I also shared this information in my criminal and internal interviews.
After initial investigative interviews indicated a wide array of release practices and victim contact situations, the sheriff’s office initiated multiple other allegations against me over a period of 8 more months to include re-investigating the previous incident at Target. Frohnert specifically wrote a memo and made false statements to the investigator leading to an accusation of the crime of Kidnapping II because mom had been moved from one housing unit to another while being held in jail against her will. I had no knowledge or part in her being in jail nor in being moved within the jail, and it was well documented she was moved by medical for drug detoxification reasons. Housing unit and cell moves occur dozens of times daily.
I was investigated for whether I failed to pay the required .10 cents per minute for a 1 minute phone call received on my issued cell phone, which was a “junk” call from a New Jersey area phone number which I hung up on. The query was to determine if I should have paid for it as a personal call. I was investigated for a return I made to a store and whether it could be construed as Theft III by returning something gifted without returning the funds to the original giver of the gift. I was accused of trying to intimidate mom into “giving up” her parenting time and trying to reduce her parenting time despite evidence I was encouraging her to show up to visits and proposing a regular schedule of visits for the child and her.
Specific to the “Brady List,” Sheriff Garrett is responsible for notifying the DA’s office whenever a certified employee likely has honesty issues. He emailed to notify them he was internally investigating me for untruthfulness. He also followed up after the investigation to notify them I had notbeen found to have been untruthful (see his email here). In addition, the DA’s office notified Garrett and I of my status as an “additional discovery” witness while acknowledging I had not been found to be untruthful.
The “Brady” list as it is coined, has been expanded to include levels or “tiers” for potential witness issues (See OR State Legislature explanation of tiers here, page 7). Tier 1 is untruthfulness and results in an officer not being able to testify and termination from employment. I was not placed in that status. Tier 2 is any conduct that could have been intended to deceive and is limited to a specific circumstance, such as an extramarital affair (example given by OR Legislature). This tier is referred to as “additional disclosure” and is how the DA chose to classify me after I was accused of criminal conduct with no findings and accused of untruthfulness with no findings.
The DA has complete discretion in this decision, however the Oregon State Legislature has published a best practices guideline which indicates affected witnesses should be notified of the consideration of this status and given the opportunity to respond. In fact, I only received notification of this as a “cc” at the bottom of the notice to Sheriff Garrett after the DA’s decision. I never received any notification of this being considered, never received any opportunity to present additional information, and never received any opportunity to appeal the decision of the DA. (See guidance from OR State Legislature here, page 6)
As a supervisor at WCSO, I am personally aware of dozens of times someone has been investigated for untruthfulness and found not to have been. However, these deputies have not been treated the same way as I was with notification by the sheriff of the investigation despite not finding untruthfulness. The DA placed me on that status a year after the investigation was complete and 6 months after I filed an internal discrimination complaint with the county. I have never had the opportunity to defend, respond to, or appeal this notification.
Regarding questions about my decision to filter some of the comments on my social media accounts as an indication of lack of transparency, my account is intended to share my platform and educate voters in the quest to determine their chosen candidate. As a political candidate, I have seen the gambit of responses to my platform, and value the ability of even my dissenters to express their choices and beliefs. However, I have exercised the responsibility to have social media filter comments for abusive language. Does this mean I don’t value transparency? Absolutely not. In fact, as some name calling survived filters, I let those remain. In fact, some of the comments filtered, I absolutely agreed with, but language choices prevented them from being displayed.
After consulting a political advisor, I also removed a couple posts which included false and defamatory statements that could be damaging to a career in law enforcement. These statements came from people I don’t know and who have no basis upon which to make those false and damaging allegations. The example given by my opponent stated, “She is a liar and nothing she says can be trusted. No morals and honor.” This is not the same as posting a difference of opinion. That is blatantly false, and an accusation of lying can be career ending in law enforcement.
Lastly, I had a couple people who were known to me as associates of vocal dissenters who posted incessantly despite genuine attempts to be responsive and kind regarding their opinions. Those who posted a few comments and moved on, I left on the thread. However, there were a couple individuals who I removed due to a clear message the intent was not simply information seeking or who publicly used the tragedy of others on my platform. I would have no issue with their comments remaining while preventing them from continuously adding negativity with no clear point in seeking information. However, FB hides all previous comments if you mark a user as prevented from continuing to add. I encourage them to publish freely on their personal sites as well as that of my opponent to share their opinions of me.
Thank you for reading,
Red Wortham
Red Wortham for Sheriff
PO Box 1623
Hillsboro, Oregon 97123
In October, I was notified it was believed I may have used my position for personal benefit (to obtain a report and video). I was investigated for that. The DA found that although the security staff expressed confusion about whether I was acting officially or not, I had not intended to purport I was acting officially and had sent at least one text clarifying it was not for a criminal matter. The bracketed portion in the text quoted indicates a description by the security manager (as I had subpoenaed her with her consent).
