Current conditions unavailable
After four Centralia police officers were fired late last year for allegedly failing to provide a timely response to a domestic violence call in June, the state Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC) is reviewing the Centralia Police Department's investigation to determine a stance on whether the officers’ police certifications should be revoked.
CJTC handles training and certification for peace officers in the state of Washington.
The officers — Sgt. John Dorff and officers Michael Smerer, Jocelynn Giammalva and Phil Reynolds — are accused of ignoring the call for aid while they were having a crew lunch at the police station.
The initial 911 call reporting the ongoing domestic dispute at a Lewis Street apartment complex came from an anonymous neighbor at 11:49 a.m. on June 26, after a man reportedly pulled a woman into an apartment by her hair, according to investigative documents from the Centralia Police Department recently obtained by The Chronicle.
Dispatchers with Lewis County Communications notified the Centralia Police Department of the call at 11:51 a.m., broadcasting the message “Radio to Centralia Patrol. Dispute Lewis Street Centralian Apartments” over the police radio.
A male voice immediately responded “14,” which are the last two digits of Giammalva’s call sign, according to the documents.
However, it wasn’t Giammalva who spoke on the radio to accept the call, according to investigative documents.
It is still unclear which officer spoke over the radio to accept the call.
During his interview with Centralia Police Commander Andy Caldwell, who conducted the initial investigation, Smerer said it could have been any of the other officers who were in the office at the time.
“We do that a lot, where if we’re at the office, it’s ‘Ha, ha, let’s give it to somebody else,’” Smerer said, adding: “so it comes and goes around, and if they get you, then you do the call, and nobody's ever had a problem with it, 'cause we all have been hammered by it at some point,” he said, according to a transcript of the Aug. 24 interview.
Giammalva told investigators that she read the case notes included in the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system when the call came in, which included a note stating the victim had gone out to her car and grabbed a sweatshirt, according to investigative documents.
“Where it says that the female then left willing out of her apartment, grabbed something out of her car, and then comes back into the apartment willingly? No blood, no screaming, no crying, no asking for help, no nothing, no distress?” said Giammalva when asked why there was a delay in responding to the call, according to a transcript of her Aug. 10 interview with Caldwell.
She added, “That’s why we didn’t respond (with) lights and sirens immediately right away. Nothing in the call shows there’s anything pressing, especially if she willingly went right back into her apartment.”
The CAD notes specifically stated: “FEMALE IS WALKING TO THE PARKING LOT NOW — GETTING IN A MAROON FORD FOCUS — SHE’S GRABBING A SWEATSHIRT … NOW SHE’S BACK IN THE APT,” according to investigative documents.
According to the interview transcript, when asked by Caldwell if there was a discussion about responding to the call, Dorff said “I think there was a little bit of discussion, like, ‘Well, she’s going back on her own will, so there’s no exigency to it.’ She was gone by herself. Had the opportunity to leave and chose not to.”
Reynolds and Smerer claimed they were not aware of the call and did not remember whether there was a discussion about responding.
“I don’t remember anybody saying ‘don’t.’ I mean, why the hell would we, ‘Maybe let’s not go to this one.’ Doesn’t make any sense,” said Smerer in an Aug. 24 interview with Caldwell.
There were no other calls active at the time, according to investigative documents.
Interviews with the officers, supported by surveillance video from the station, revealed that while the call was active, the officers were making pizza in the break area as part of a crew lunch.
Video shows officers going between the break area and the fridge, and shows Reynolds carrying a propane tank around the station.
At 12:16 p.m., the victim’s mother called 911 to report the domestic dispute and inform dispatchers the victim’s boyfriend has a history of domestic violence (DV).
Dispatchers uploaded those details into the CAD system at 12:19 p.m. and called Giammalva’s call sign. A female voice responded “go ahead.”
The dispatcher stated “there’s going to be an update to the dispute off Lewis Street,” according to investigative documents.
Dispatch again called Giammalva at 12:22 p.m. An unidentified radio “momentarily” keyed in, according to documents, and the dispatcher informed them about a restraining order between the two subjects.
After asking Giammalva’s call sign for confirmation and not receiving an answer, dispatch sent out a message at 12:26 p.m., reading, “WHAT’S UP W CENT? THEY ARE DOING NOTHING.. I HAVE A DV ISSUE WITH AN ACTIVE RESTRAINING ORDER BETWEEN THE TWO AND NOONE IS GOING LOL.. MAYBE I SHOULD CALL OUT CHEHALIS”
The dispatcher added that the male subject had two misdemeanor warrants out for his arrest.
During her interview with Caldwell, Giammalva said she recalled looking up the names of the man and woman involved in the dispute and recalled seeing the warrants against the man. She told Caldwell, “I remember bringing that up to the group saying, ‘hey,’ to whatever they were doin’, bein’ like, ‘Hey, when you guys are done with whatever you’re doing can we — this is what I have.’”
She added, “Because when it comes to DV stuff it is not smart to go by yourself as a solo officer. So, knowing all that information, that possible order violation, he could possibly be there and he’s got a couple warrants, and one of them being DV, so it’s a mandatory arrest, I want to make sure that I have backup before I show up by myself,” according to the interview transcript.
Later on in the department’s disciplinary process, Giammalva reportedly told investigators the reason for the delayed response to the call was because she was “back at the station developing a ‘tactical plan’ for response to this call,” according to a termination letter signed by Chief Stacy Denham.
Dorff, who was the supervising officer on duty at the time, told Caldwell during an Aug. 10 interview that he was not aware of the updated information added to the call.
When asked why he didn’t tell his officers to respond to the call, Dorff said, “To be honest with you, I was buried in the new house bills — trying to figure out, so I could have a discussion with my crew at a later date, so we could all be on the same page and know what to expect. Um, the radios are sh-t in here. I don’t remember hearing any of the updates, and I don’t micromanage my — my troops. I — I trust that they’re going to do what they have to do and do it in accordance with policy because they’ve never given me reason not — not to believe that that’s going to happen. But now, I’m a little more mindful of what’s on the screen and what’s going on.”
He added, “And I failed this one.”
Surveillance video from the police station shows Giammalva leave the station by herself at 12:41 p.m., enter her patrol car and drive out of the parking lot.
Video shows Giammalva returned to the station in her marked patrol car at 1:03 p.m. carrying “what appears to be a drink carrier into the building,” according to investigative documents.
Interviews with the other officers revealed the drink carriers contained milkshakes or coffee beverages for the crew lunch.
When shown printed pictures from the parking lot surveillance camera of her departure and return with the drink carrier, Giammalva told Caldwell, “Yeah, honestly I don’t remember this,” according to the interview transcript.
At 1:35 p.m., the neighbor who made the initial call called 911 again to report that no officers had responded to the call.
Video shows Giammalva, Dorff, Smerer and Reynolds leave the building between 1:36 and 1:37 p.m. and get into their patrol cars.
At 1:38 p.m. — an hour and 46 minutes after the initial call came in — Giammalva radioed dispatch and said “myself and other units will be enroute,” according to investigative documents.
All units arrived at the scene at 1:41 p.m.
Giammalva then made contact with the victim, who reportedly denied officers entry into her apartment. The victim reportedly told Giammalva that she felt safe and, when asked by Giammalva why she was “protecting” her boyfriend, the victim reportedly said, “Well, if I let you in he’s just gonna get mad at me,” according to a transcript from an interview between Giammalva and Commander Caldwell.
While the victim and the officers were talking, a witness reported seeing the suspect jump out of a window at the back of the apartment. The victim then reportedly started crying and said, “Why would he do that? He’s so stupid,” according to Giammalva’s account of the incident.
The officers were unable to locate the suspect at the scene.
Giammalva and Smerer ultimately arrested the victim for rendering criminal assistance and making a false or misleading statement to a public servant — charges the Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office ultimately chose not to pursue because the boyfriend was facing first-degree burglary and second-degree assault charges stemming from the same incident.
“If (the victim) has charges pending, stemming from the same incident, she would have the right not to testify at trial regarding (the boyfriend),” wrote Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Karin Phomma in a June 28 letter declining the charges against the victim.
Caldwell wrote that, based on his investigation, he did not believe the officers’ actions in arresting the victim violated the Centralia Police Department’s policy. However, investigators ultimately decided the decision to arrest the victim was not “keeping with the spirit and purpose of our domestic violence laws and departmental policies which focus on the protection of victims of domestic violence,” according to documents.
“The victim deserved compassion and respect. She did not deserve to be further traumatized by being handcuffed and booked for a minor charge,” wrote Denham in an official letter to Giammalva on Nov. 4.
Department policy requires officers to provide domestic violence victims with information about domestic violence services that are available in the community — which Giammalva said she did verbally by telling the victim about the Human Response Network during her arrest, according to investigative documents.
The neighbor who made the initial 911 call posted about the June 26 incident on Facebook that same day. Denham said he was made aware of the post and had a commander conduct a preliminary evaluation of the information.
The Centralia Police Department initiated a formal internal investigation of Giammalva, Smerer and Dorff in July.
Because Giammalva was the only officer to submit a narrative report of the call and it was initially unclear whether Reynolds was involved, Reynolds was only added into the investigation after Caldwell interviewed Giammalva in August and determined Giammalva had asked Reynolds to help her respond to the call.
Giammalva, Smerer and Dorff were accused of failing to respond to a reported domestic violence assault/protection order violation in a timely manner. They were also accused of arresting the victim and for apparently failing to provide her with access to a domestic violence advocate.
Dorff was additionally accused of failing his responsibilities as the supervisor on duty at the time.
Denham sustained all allegations against the officers and all three were terminated on Nov. 4.
Reynolds, who was subject to an unrelated second investigation at the time, was placed on administrative leave on Nov. 4 and was fired on Dec. 17.
All four have had Brady disclosures — letters disclosing that the officer has a sustained complaint of dishonesty on their record — sent to the prosecutor’s office.
If CJTC finds probable cause for revoking or dismissing any of the officers’ police certifications, the agency will compile a statement of charges and mail it to the officers along with a notice stating they have 60 days to request a hearing before a hearings panel.
The officers’ certification will be revoked if they don’t respond within 60 days of the notice, according to a CJTC spokesperson.
