POULSBO — Poulsbo Mayor Becky Erickson will report Jan. 6 on her findings into how Poulsbo police handled a Kitsap County Sheriff’s sergeant’s alleged DUI.

Erickson said her report will be the first agenda item at the City Council meeting at 7 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting is open to the public.

The Kitsap Sun reported on Dec. 30 that Sheriff’s Sgt. Jim Porter was not arrested or charged with a crime “despite being found sitting behind the wheel of his personal vehicle, keys in hand, smelling of alcohol, covered in vomit and admitting to a Poulsbo police officer that he was drunk and had just driven himself home” on Oct. 16.

The Sun obtained related reports and body camera footage through the Public Records Act.

Poulsbo Police Chief Al Townsend issued the following statement on Jan. 2 about how his department handled its portion of the investigation into Porter’s alleged DUI.

In the report, Townsend states that a Poulsbo police officer, investigating a report of an intoxicated individual in a car at Regal Cinemas in Poulsbo, found Porter in his car and “the vehicle was off, the keys were not in the ignition, and it was legally parked in a parking stall in the theater parking lot.” He declined the officer’s offer of a ride home, so she left him at the scene and advised him to not drive.

Later, CenCom was notified by the theater that the individual had driven his car away from the parking lot, and a call was dispatched to area law enforcement agencies, Townsend reports. Poulsbo police, being closest to the scene, responded to Porter’s home and found him in his car there, but because Porter’s home is located three miles outside of the city limits, the investigation was turned over at the scene to the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office, Townsend reports.

At one point, the Poulsbo police officer turned off her body camera while consulting with Townsend at Porter’s home. Townsend said the department “will be reviewing this policy and recommending that the body worn cameras remain active during the entire interaction when the subject of the investigation is another law enforcement officer or person of influence, such as an elected official, to ensure additional transparency.”

Townsend also reports that his department is reviewing other possible changes in how it handles similar cases. He also states that Porter “should face a disciplinary process in which he would likely be subjected to an unpaid suspension, demotion, or even termination …”

Townsend’s report on his department’s handling of the investigation on Oct. 16:

“On October 16th, officers were called to a movie theater within the city limits of Poulsbo. The theater had contacted police because they observed a subject to be walking to his car in the parking lot and he appeared intoxicated. Officer Danielle Branes, a newer police officer with the department responded and made contact with the subject, later determined to be Porter.

“Ofc. Branes activated her body worn camera during the encounter. During the contact, she was able to clearly determine that the occupant of the vehicle was impaired. The vehicle was off, the keys were not in the ignition, and it was legally parked in a parking stall in the theater parking lot. Porter declined to provide Ofc. Branes his name or provide any identification. At that time, Ofc. Branes made several offers to give Porter a ride home. Porter declined. Ofc. Branes determined that he was safely off of the roadway and that no enforcement action should be taken. She instructed the theater to call police if the vehicle left.

“Some have said that they believe that Porter was treated special by Branes because he was a law enforcement officer. That is not the case. Ofc. Branes was unaware that Porter was a law enforcement officer at any time during her contact with him. Officers of the Poulsbo Police Department routinely offer people who are impaired the opportunity to take a ride home in lieu of sitting in their vehicle, WHEN the vehicle is safely off the roadway, a defense to being in physical control of the vehicle.

“At 10:57 p.m., dispatchers reported that the theater had called to report that the vehicle that Porter was in left the theater 5 minutes prior. This call was dispatched over the north radio channel, covering Poulsbo, Bainbridge Island, Suquamish and Port Gamble tribes, and the north KCSO units. No officers were in the immediate area at the time of this call, however, Poulsbo Officer Jennifer Corn asked for the vehicle registration information. It should be noted that Ofc. Corn had a reserve police officer in her vehicle with her that night. Her intent was to travel the most direct route from the theater to the registered owners address as a caretaking function to ensure that they made it home. The registered owner’s address is approximately 3 miles or more outside of the city limits of Poulsbo.

“At 11:10 p.m., as Ofc. Corn begins to approach the home of the registered owner, she sees Porter’s vehicle backed into and parked on the side of the driveway. She also notices a sheriff’s department vehicle in the driveway. It’s at this point that she recognizes the registered owner’s name to be that of Sgt. Jim Porter of the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office. She then approached Porter’s vehicle which he was still occupying. She notices that the keys to the vehicle are not in the ignition and again this vehicle is safely off of the roadway. While it can certainly be presumed that Porter drove to this location, neither Ofc. Corn nor any other officer observed the vehicle in motion.

“At this point, because of his law enforcement position, because she knows him, and because she is outside the city limits of Poulsbo, at 11:12 p.m. she calls for a supervisor for the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office and at 11:17 p.m. she calls for a supervisor from the Poulsbo Police Department. I was working the street with my officers that night and responded to Porter’s house at her request. A sergeant from KCSO also responded.

“It should be noted that during Ofc. Corn’s interaction with Porter, she had activated a body worn camera that our agency deploys to all police officers and sergeants. During my interactions with Ofc. Corn, away from Porter, she turned off her body camera. Poulsbo Police Department policy allows officers to deactivate their body cameras when consulting with other officers about investigatory matters. During this particular deactivation time, Ofc. Corn explained to me how she ended up at the house, who the subject was, what she had observed, and what course of action we would take. Also off camera, Ofc. Corn and I talked with KCSO Sergeant Dickson who came to the residence. Again, Ofc. Corn repeated to him the details of the call and how she ended up at Porter’s home. It was at this point that the investigation now belonged to the sheriff’s office.

“Sgt. Dickson contacted the movie theater to determine if anyone from the theater saw the driver of the vehicle, which they did not. During our conversation with the on scene KCSO sergeant it was suggested as an option to KCSO, that KCSO may want to contact the Washington State Patrol to conduct a further investigation, but that our investigation was concluded after KCSO had arrived at the scene, since it was clearly outside of our jurisdiction. At 12:10 p.m. the investigation was completely turned over to KCSO. Ofc. Corn, her reserve officer, and I left the residence. Later that night I do recall hearing the KCSO Office of Professional Standards sergeant on the radio and presumably to go to Porter’s home where Sgt. Dickson was located. Further details of what investigatory steps took place by KCSO after our department concluded its involvement will need to be directed to that agency.

“I believe Ofc. Corn handled herself with the utmost professionalism while following department directives, especially when encountering someone that she has known for years and outranks her in another law enforcement agency. Her decision to call supervisors from her agency and the agency with jurisdiction was key. It was not her place to try to make decisions about how this investigation should proceed. At no time does she try to hide anything. She activates her body worn camera and uses it in accordance with policy during the entire incident.

“Sgt. Porter put many people in a very bad situation because of his poor decision making. Even after he was given opportunities to take a ride home, which he refused, he continued to make poor decisions. While I certainly hope he is held accountable for his actions, that matter is for the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office. I can say with certainty, that the Poulsbo Police Department treated Porter no different than they would any other citizen.

“Since the conclusion of this investigation, the public has asked questions or made statements which I will address below:

“Why are officers allowed to turn off the body camera whenever they want? Under Poulsbo Police Department policy, during an investigation, officers can temporarily deactivate the body camera when consulting with other officers about the investigation. This can be important in times where information may not want to be shared. An example would be information from a source that doesn’t want their name used as part of the investigation or discussing medical condition information that is private. Certainly in this case, it would have been nice to have that video and audio to show what was discussed and to provide additional transparency. It would also show how the investigation was turned over to KCSO since it was clearly outside of the city limits of Poulsbo. However, Ofc. Corn was clearly following department policy when she turned off the camera.

“From our experience on this particular incident, we will be reviewing this policy and recommending that the body worn cameras remain active during the entire interaction when the subject of the investigation is another law enforcement officer or person of influence, such as an elected official, to ensure additional transparency. Our policy for body worn cameras continues to develop and has been changed multiple times as we learn from our experiences.

“Why wasn’t Porter arrested for DUI at the movie theater when you first contacted him? As stated above, when Porter was contacted at the theater, he was in the vehicle; the vehicle was parked legally in a parking stall; the vehicle was off; the keys were not in the ignition. A DUI charge and a physical control charge require the government to prove different elements of the crime. In a Washington State DUI case the government must prove you drove a vehicle. However, to prove the crime of physical control the government must prove that you were in ‘actual physical control’ of a vehicle.

“The term ‘actual physical control’ is not defined by Washington statute. Examples of drivers found to be in ‘actual physical control’ include: a driver sitting in the driver’s seat of a parked car with the keys in the ignition; a driver seated in the driver’s seat of a vehicle that had run out of gas; and a driver seated in the driver’s seat of a car in an intersection with the keys on the floor of the vehicle. I’m not aware of any examples that meet the situation the officer was faced with when she encountered Porter.

“It is past practice of the Poulsbo Police Department, when encountering persons ‘safely off the roadway’, as Porter was, to offer them a ride and to not arrest. This practice applies to all persons. In fact, officers involved in this incident had inquired approximately one month prior to our city prosecutor for additional training materials on ‘safely off the roadway’. Officers wanted to ensure they weren’t arresting persons who would never be charged.

“Legal materials were provided and additional in-person follow-up training took place. As a result of this incident, we will be meeting with legal counsel to determine if we should change this practice or if there is an alternative when the occupant of the vehicle refuses a courtesy ride home, much like Porter did.

“You clearly gave this person preferential treatment because he was a fellow law enforcement officer. Actually that is not the case at all. As mentioned earlier in this document, Poulsbo Police officers do not arrest persons for DUI that we consider not to be in physical control of the vehicle and the vehicle is safely off of the roadway. This applies to all persons. A vehicle that is parked in a parking lot with the keys not in the ignition would certainly not be charged as a DUI in Kitsap County. Enhancements that would result in a DUI arrest by a Poulsbo Police Officer would be such things as: the vehicle is running, the vehicle is in the actual roadway impeding traffic, the vehicle is in gear, the vehicle has been involved in a collision, and the vehicle is on but not running because it has run out of gas.

“Since this incident, we are reviewing ‘in physical control’ cases with the municipal prosecutor. As we continue to follow-up on this, we will be seeking access to all similar cases submitted to the Kitsap County Prosecutor’s Office by all county law enforcement agencies to determine if there is any history of such cases being charged.

“And finally, the decision to arrest Porter at his residence was to be determined by an agency with jurisdiction, that being either the sheriff’s office or the Washington State Patrol. One of the reasons that Poulsbo Police Ofc. Corn contacted KCSO was because we were in their jurisdiction, in the unincorporated area of Kitsap County.

“Based upon our experience from this incident, we will review whether adding language to our department policy that spells out that ‘safely off the roadway’ cases will not result in arrest, so that it’s clear that this policy is for all motorists, not a specific person or group, even though past practice shows this.

“Shouldn’t police officers be held to a higher standard than the average citizen? Yes they should. And that was the case here as well. That higher standard should not mean a lower legal threshold to arrest or a reduction in their civil rights. It means that the law enforcement officer should be treated the same during the investigation as any other person would. The Poulsbo Police Department conducted its investigation in that manner. As part of the department’s internal investigation of the officer’s conduct, the higher standard will be invoked. Personnel action against an officer based upon his/her conduct can be severe, up to and including termination. There are very few other professions where your off-duty conduct can so severely impact your career.

“Porter should face a disciplinary process in which he would likely be subjected to an unpaid suspension, demotion, or even termination resulting in thousands of dollars or even the loss of his career. I support this system. It is how we hold officers to a higher level of accountability than other citizens.”