After nearly nine years at the San Juan County Sheriff’s Office, Orcas Island deputy Jason Gross was let go on Dec. 17.

Prior to the termination, an internal investigation was launched after complaints of incomplete reports and possible errors in a sexual assault investigation.

Gross appealed Sheriff Eric Peter’s decision to the San Juan County Civil Service Commission. A hearing was held Feb. 11, and Gross appeared through his attorney Robert Bulloch.

Bulloch attempted to postpone the hearing because he had not received all the paperwork related to the case, including police reports and a recording, that he had requested from the county.

“It affects on a dramatic scale of having a fair hearing,” Bulloch told the commissioners.

The Commission deliberated but ultimately decided to move ahead with the hearing. The decision was due, the Commission said, to keep the process transparent and because their decision could be appealed to San Juan County Superior Court.

Two days later, the Commission voted to uphold the termination, which includes, according to Gross, never working as a police officer again anywhere in the United States or as an employee of San Juan County. Gross has appealed that decision, and it will go before Judge Kathryn Loring at an undetermined date.

Details of the investigation and hearing

Sergeant Rory Smith, based on Lopez, led the internal affairs investigation.

The investigation’s report dated Oct. 24 states that “Deputy Gross will likely refer to a lack of training, low staffing and personal issues at home as contributing factors to his poor performance. The investigator does [not] ignore that likelihood or validity but simply offers an opinion on whether or not policy violations occurred and respects the final evaluation of the Sheriff.”

The report advocated working with Gross on improvement, saying, “Should Deputy Gross be returned to duty, the investigator believes clear and measurable standards of performance should be imposed on Deputy Gross, along with tools for his sergeant to better monitor Gross’s productivity. It is clear that he (Gross) is not entitled to the discretionary decision-making and case management normally allowed for a deputy with his years of service.”

Sheriff Eric Peter testified during the commission hearing that “multiple” Brady violations by Gross led to his decision.

Brady violations stem from a 1963 capital murder case Brady v. Maryland that established the prosecution must turn over all evidence to the defendant. As part of the prosecution team, law enforcement must turn over their evidence to the prosecutor. Violations also include inaccuracy, dishonesty and failure to follow orders.

Gross’s violation of withholding evidence arose from omitting a brief recorded interview with the alleged victim of a rape case he had been investigating. According to Gross, he forgot the recording existed and felt “very embarrassed” for the oversight.

Sheriff Peter told the Commission that the mistake was “too great” to overlook, especially compounded with other violations.

During Bulloch’s cross-examination of Peter, he asked for an example of an unintentional mistake that resulted in automatic termination. Peter could give none. When asked if any deputies currently working for the Sheriff’s Office had Brady violations, Peter said one.

Bulloch concluded that a Brady violation, then, was not a reason for an automatic termination. Sheriff Peter attempted to clarify; however, Bulloch only allowed him to answer yes or no at that point.

“The Sheriff is applying an unfair standard only to Jason, not anyone else,” Bulloch said.

After three hours, the hearing ended, and on Feb. 13, the Commission announced it would be upholding the discharge of Gross.

The findings stated: “The Commission reviewed the letter from Prosecuting Attorney Amy Vira in Exhibit 3 which noted that their office was unable to prosecute and determine if the incident was a crime due to the report being ‘confusing and poorly written’” and that “the Commission referred to the case presentation provided by Sheriff Peter and his attorney. The omission of the recording as evidence as well as the Appellant’s inability to recall that the evidence was taken – whether intentional or not – was inconsistent with established law enforcement standards and best practices. Moreover, this omission produced a hardship for the victim.”

Appeal to superior court

In Bulloch’s Petition for Review, he writes that “… The agency erroneously interpreted and applied the law and burden of proof; The decision or order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the agency or tribunal and the decision or order is arbitrary or capricious.”

Bulloch requested that the matter be remanded back to the Civil Service Commission, with a new hearing to “comply with the state and federal Constitutions, its own promulgated rules and processes, including allowing subpoenas, providing Petitioner’s counsel with equal opportunity to review the information and details of the circumstances, obtain appropriate discovery and applying the appropriate legal standards and burden of proof.”

He also requested that an order demanding a certified transcript of the record and all papers on file in the office of the Commission affecting or relating to its order be filed with this court and provided to the petitioner and counsel.

No further hearing is scheduled at this time.