The Final Call

State patrol tries to intimidate Seattle NAACP

What's your opinion on this article?

Graphic: Harold Muhammad/MGN Online

Ms. Secrest, a law clerk with U.S. District Judge Frank Burgess, filed a complaint, on behalf of the NAACP, with the Washington State Patrol against five Washington State Patrol troopers for their alleged actions as it related to the Nov. 2002 traffic stop and arrest of Omar Wiley.

The allegations in the complaint included: conduct unbecoming of an officer, excessive force, false charges, retaliation, and falsifying reports. After she filed the complaint with the State Patrol, a State Patrol investigator contacted her place of employment and asked questions regarding her job duties and how they interact with her involvement with the NAACP.

The NAACP calls the inquiries by the State Patrol of Secrest’s employer inappropriate and unacceptable.

“We’re here to call attention to more racist behavior by law enforcement,” said Seattle/King County NAACP President Alfoster Garrett Jr. during a press conference addressing the situation. “This is the first incident where the investigators chose not to cooperate with the NAACP, and chose to investigate the NAACP instead.”

According to Captain Jeff DeVere of the Washington State Patrol, the State Patrol does have an open investigation with regards to the officers’ actions in connection with the arrest of Mr. Wiley. He expressed that the State Patrol does have some concerns regarding the communication sent to Ms. Secrest’s employer, but was not at liberty to speculate as to why it was sent without further investigation.

“We take allegations like this very seriously,” said Capt. DeVere. “We are looking into the allegations to determine if we need to take further actions.”

But the NAACP maintains that the actions of the State Patrol are intimidation tactics to deter their investigation into the events that led to the arrest and alleged mistreatment of Mr. Wiley.

Mr. Wiley was pulled over by Washington State Patrol Trooper Kyle Burgess while driving to work at approximately 5:30 a.m. as he was headed southbound on I-5. During the encounter, four additional State Troopers responded to the scene, and he was pepper-sprayed, physically removed from his vehicle, handcuffed, and allegedly had a foot placed on his head during his arrest. He was charged with DUI and resisting arrest. The DUI charge was dismissed without prejudice and the resisting arrest charge was dropped.

According to a written statement from his attorney Stephen Smith, who was on the phone with Mr. Wiley throughout the incident, Mr. Wiley did not sound as if he had been drinking, “his voice was clear and his words were not slurred in any way.” Atty. Smith also witnessed, via the phone, the repeated use of profanity as the responding officers ordered Mr. Wiley to get out of his car. While on the phone, he advised Mr. Wiley of his rights and was told by Mr. Wiley that he had presented his driver’s license, registration and insurance to the trooper.

The trooper did acknowledge this in his report. He also stated in his report that he observed Mr. Wiley driving erratically on Interstate 5 and speeding in excess of 80 mph; that Mr. Wiley refused to get out of his vehicle and was talking on two cell phones at the time (one in each hand). The Trooper also wrote in his report that he could smell the strong odor of alcohol on Mr. Wiley’s breath and that he refused to take DUI tests, after he was removed from the vehicle.

“There was no reason for it to escalate the way it did. Once he started to comply, what was the reason for them to pepper-spray him?” asked Mr. Garrett. “Race still matters in America, and unfortunately they (the officers involved in the incident) haven’t been trained properly.”

In addition, the NAACP is alleging retaliation in the incident because Mr. Wiley was not criminally charged in the case until after he made a complaint against the officers five months after the incident had occurred.

The State Patrol contends that they have no control over when people are charged. According to Capt. DeVere, the timing of the charges depend on current case loads

Despite the continued advocacy on behalf of Mr. Wiley by the NAACP, the focus of this case has clearly changed with the inquiries of Secrest by the State Patrol.

“It is an intimidation tactic to get her to back off from what she’s doing,” said NAACP board member Sakara Remmu. “What is unacceptable is that they would try to intimidate members of the community and this NAACP for seeking the truth.”

“Not only do we have a problem with the individual officers at the scene of the incident, we now have a problem with the investigators of the State Patrol,” said Ms. Secrest. “The NAACP does not run, and we will not be scared away.”

In a statement released after the press conference, the State Patrol stated that the situation has been addressed and resolved. According to the release, Chief John Batiste called Ms. Secrest, after the press conference, and apologized for any misunderstanding and that Ms. Secrest accepted the apology.

However, Mr. Garrett has indicated that an apology on behalf of the State Patrol has not been accepted.

“The State Patrol’s half-hearted apology is completely unacceptable to the NAACP. Ms. Secrest indicated that the apology she accepted was, in essence, an acknowledgement that the call should not have been placed and a promise that process would be changed to prevent future incidents of this nature. The State Patrol’s apology is completely different than the watered-down mea culpa issued today,” he said.