By Sharyn L. Decker
Lewis County Sirens news reporter
CHEHALIS – While a judge decided last week former Lewis County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Hal Sprouse should get his job back, that isn’t likely to happen anytime soon.
Sheriff Steve Mansfield plans to appeal Friday’s decision by a Cowlitz County Superior Court judge, a sheriff’s office spokesperson said yesterday.
Lewis County Sheriff Steve Mansfield
“The only comment we have is we are appealing the case and we have no other comment at this time, due to the current litigation,” Chief Civil Deputy Stacy Brown said.
Sprouse, now 61, was terminated by Sheriff Mansfield in January of last year, and the Lewis County Civil Service Commission subsequently upheld the firing.
Sprouse’s termination stemmed from the sheriff’s office’s contention that Sprouse was insubordinate and violated the chain of command when he contacted a deputy prosecutor to say he believed some of his superiors were engaging in intimidation and witness tampering – of him – during an outside investigation of Mansfield’s handling of a runaway girl case in 2009.
Court documents indicate the intimidation that Sprouse was alleging followed a complaint by the Lewis County Deputies Guild to the Lewis County prosecutor that led to an investigation by the Washington State Patrol about potential misconduct by the sheriff including allegedly harboring a runaway; the 16-year-old girlfriend of Mansfield’s son.
Sprouse believed he was being intimidated as a potential witness in any action that might be brought against the sheriff, documents in the court file state.
The sheriff’s office also contended Sprouse was dishonest when he failed to reveal to a superior he had spoken to the deputy prosecutor about his witness tampering concerns.
While the Civil Service Commission that reviewed Sprouse’s termination concluded Sprouse was not insubordinate, did not violate the chain of command and was not untruthful, the three-panel board still decided the sheriff terminated Sprouse in good faith for just cause.
The commission wrote in its April 27, 2010 decision Sprouse’s call to the deputy prosecutor was without a good-faith belief a crime was committed; that it was vindictive and retaliatory for a letter of discipline he had been given.
“This action, in our determination, irreparably erodes the confidence the Lewis County Sheriff and his command staff have in Deputy Sprouse,” the commission wrote.
Sprouse filed his appeal of the commission’s decision in Lewis County Superior Court in May of last year. All three local judge’s recused themselves, so an outside judge was asked to preside.
Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge Stephen Warning’s ruling on Friday overturned the firing, Sprouse’s attorney Rick Cordes said yesterday.
“The judge said the evidence didn’t support that Sprouse was being vindictive when he went to the deputy prosecutor,” Cordes said.
The Tacoma attorney, Richard H. Wooster, who is representing the sheriff’s office, declined to comment on the case.
While Sprouse’s situation wasn’t necessarily directly related to the runaway girl case, “It’s all part of what was going on when he had these conversations with sheriff’s office (superiors) and the conversation with the deputy prosecutor,” Cordes said.
Sprouse was the first deputy to respond in March 2009 to the report of a runaway girl by her parents, – a girl who was staying with the sheriff’s son on the sheriff’s property, according to Cordes.
He didn’t feel comfortable investigating his boss,” Cordes said. “During that time, he felt there was some pressure to ‘stay in line’.”
Documents in the court file – Sprouse’s appeal of his termination – describe that as sheriff’s office command staff investigated a leak to the press of the outside investigation of the sheriff, Sprouse was given a letter of discipline for allowing his adult son and the son’s girlfriend to view a sheriff’s office report on the matter.
It didn’t lead to a conclusion about who leaked the report, but Sprouse was angry about getting disciplined and it was after that Sprouse began making allegations, according to a document filed by the sheriff’s office attorney Wooster.
Sprouse shared his concerns with two sergeants, who disagreed he was the target of witness tampering, according to Wooster’s filings.
On Oct. 24, 2009, Sprouse was informed there would be an interview in a few hours with another sergeant who would review his concerns, Wooster wrote, and he was directed not to speak about it to anyone other than his union representative.
Before that interview, Sprouse contacted the on-call deputy prosecutor, Jonathan Richardson and claimed witness tampering and intimidation, according to documents in the court file.
Within the week, the sheriff’s office learned what Sprouse had done. He was terminated Jan. 15, 2010.
Sprouse’s lawyer Cordes argued in one of his briefs to Judge Warning, as the Civil Service Commission had already stated, that deputies are sworn to uphold the laws of the state of Washington and nobody may order a deputy not to report a crime.
Cordes said Sprouse wants his job back, and theoretically Friday’s decision mean’s he will get reinstated with back pay and benefits.
Except the sheriff’s office is appealing, he said.
And that means, “If he wins, then they’ll owe him for close to four years in back pay,” Cordes said.
Sprouse, who started work at the sheriff’s office in November of 2001 after retiring from the Phoenix, Ariz. Police Department, is currently selling real estate locally.
Side notes:
Deputy Prosecutor Richardson passed along Sprouse’s allegation of witness tampering to elected Lewis County Prosecutor Michael Golden, who referred the matter to the Washington State Patrol.
After a limited inquiry, the state patrol concluded no further action would be taken on Sprouse’s allegations.
And, the investigation of Sheriff Mansfield ended in Nov. 2009, with the state Attorney General’s office faulting Mansfield for failing to ask an outside agency to handle the runaway case, but declining to file a criminal charge against the sheriff.
•••
Read the Lewis County Sheriff’s Civil Service Commission, “Decision after hearing” in the matter of Deputy Hal Sprouse: signed April 27, 2010, here
Tags: By Sharyn L. Decker, news reporter
Joe, if the “so called Sheriff” should be run out of town, then there are two questions: 1) Why was he reelected? 2) Start a recall petition… politicians hate those things.
While I’m not saying that Mansfield is or isn’t crooked (that’s a good argument for another time… ), the investigation into his conduct was already concluded. The deputy in question in this case had been disciplined for one reason or another (it never says in the article), and was supposedly retaliating against the Sheriff for said discipline.
While the Civil Service Commission may have found that the guy did NOT violate and specific rules, wasn’t bucking the chain of command, or anything else like that, they STILL found that the firing be upheld, as he was fired in good faith that he HAD violated the laws (I still think that whining and making stuff up to get another person in trouble is something that should have been left on the playground at the age of 8…).
So, the deputy in question was fired, and is demanding his job back. If the court order to rehire the guy is upheld, then it will show who is in charge of the Sheriff’s Department for Lewis County…. and it won’t be the Sheriff. It will be the union, and the judge fro Cowlitz County who are in charge.
As for your personal opinion of Mansfield, well, like I say, you can always start a recall petition on him. And with him being a politician, well, like I say, they do hate those things.
George, Mansfield is crooked, look at the OAG report on the incident about the way his son and girlfriend was handled. The OAG had more on Mansfield than the CCC had on Sprouse (the ccc found NO wrong doing, but said the firing was justified. That’s CYA at it’s finest)
The Sheriff had it out for Sprouse and even said so in the Chronicle! He said he was going to GET EVEN WITH WHO STARTED THE INVESTIGATION AGAINST HIM.
This so called Sheriff should be run out of town.
Jack, the Sheriff SHOULD have had an outside agency do an investigation if there is any accusation of wrong-doing. Does this mean that he would actually do so? Law enforcement in this state pretty much makes up their own rules as they go along (or so it seems).
This case, however, deals with things that happened AFTER the so-called “investigation” was over with.
George, I have to agree with “Chica”, in your last post you stated that you are not affiliated with any local law enforcement agency. That being taken at face value, I have to ask one simple question. Do you believe (as did the Washington State Patrol and the Attorney’s General Office) [the links to the reports are available by clicking on the blue highlighted words in the reporters article] that the Sheriff was wrong to have his own people conduct an investigation that in some way shape or form directly involved the Sheriff himself?
Chica, I am not employed by the Sheriff, the city, county, state, or federal government. Nor have i ever, or will I ever, have or seek out employment with ANY law enforcement agency.
As for this case, the Sheriff disciplined the deputy in question for an action the deputy committed. The deputy then filed his false accusations and charges in a retaliatory measure to get back at the Sheriff for being disciplined. He was fired for that. He deserved it.
I am curious about why the Sheriff didn’t have the WSP or Attorney Generals office investigate this case from the get go. Had the Sheriff kept his own office out of a case involving himself this whole chain of events would have never taken place. From the reading of the WSP report it is clear that was a mistake on the Sheriff’s office. Furthermore, didn’t the Deputies Guild have to request the outside investigation after the fact? I’m just going off of what I have read, but it stands to reason that the officer was just acting in good faith based on the laws of the state of Washington. Luckily we will get to see how the judges view all of this. It is unfortunate that so much of our tax payers dollars are being spent to defend the mistakes of our Sheriff.
Anyway, the question I have for “George” is: What position in the Sheriff’s Department do you hold?
Would he now? And how can we have him ordered to take one now?
I’m still wondering why people don’t look at the facts that came out during the hearing that upheld the firing of the deputy in question: He had been disciplined for releasing confidential information out that should not have been released to the general public, and he followed that up with false and malicious accusations. That is NOT the kind of person I want keeping my streets safe (makes you wonder how many other lies he has told?).
As for the Sheriff, again, all you have to do is look to the people who blindly elect someone term after term… As for the case in question, it was determined through investigations that he had done nothing wrong, hence charges weren’t warranted. It was about this time that the false and malicious accusations were thrown to the local prosecutors…
The deputy in question got fired for those retaliatory accusations. His firing was upheld by a commission of local citizens. All that was left to him was to cry to someone who would listen… it kinda reminds me of a poor sport on the playground of an elementary school, with the whole “It’s MY ball and I’m going home with it because you won’t play by MY rules so I win all the time!”
The deputy does NOT deserve his job back. And if everyone is so adamant about removing Mansfield from his position as Sheriff, start a recall petition, or file complaints and charges against him yourself. Don’t do it locally, but go to the State Patrol or the Attorney General….
When a person wants to be a law enforcement officer, one of the things they have to do in the process is pass a polygraph test. This is also true when an officer moves from one law enforcement agency to another or when he or she wants to be a Police Chief. Sheriff is the ONLY law enforcement job where a polygraph is NOT required and the citizens decide who gets the job. I think Lewis County citizens should start to REQUIRE a polygraph test to each and every person who runs for this office. Then we would have a better pool of people to choose from. Would Mansfield have passed a polygraph is he was required to take one for the last election?
thats why lewis county is called corrupted lewis county because of our sheriffs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He wasn’t exactly reelected by a landslide or anything similar. Ken Cheeseman gave him a good noticeable run for his money. It’s awfully frustrating though, to know that the majority of citizens in the county do not question the actions of our officials and seem to forget their poor qualities come election time.
It amazes me that “Sheriff” Mansfied commits a crime and covers it up and then fires an honest deputy with integrity who is willing to stand up to the “good ol’ boy” network that still exist in this county. I am ASHAMED that Mansfied is still the “leader” of the Sheriff’s Office. He is a discrace to the uniform and good name of the men and women he leads and the citizens of this county.
I just wish the voters of this county would have been more informed this last election season.
While the truth about Mansfield might never come out (hey, it’s all the folks who keep electing him without questioning his actions…), in this case, the deputy was fired for good reason, and said reason was held up by the local commission.
If people STILL have issues with the Sheriff, then you need to ask WHY he was reelected… by a pretty good margin, too. Obviously, not enough people thought he was doing anything wrong to cause them to vote for the other guy….
And there is always the thing called “re-call”, where the people can say they’ve had enough of the lies and want to vote for a new person, as they have lost confidence in the incumbent… but people are too scared to “roil the waters”, as the politicians they are trying to re-call might do things…….
Wow i think the truth needs to ring out about mansfield