By Phil Ferolito
Yakima Herald-Republic
YAKIMA COUNTY, Wash — Yakima County Sheriff Ken Irwin has launched an internal investigation into circumstances surrounding two occasions of eavesdropping by one of his detectives on phone calls between an inmate and his attorney, a constitutional breach that resulted this week in the dismissal of seven felony charges against the inmate.
Irwin said in an interview Friday that his office decided to pursue an investigation into Detective Robert Tucker one day after Yakima County Superior Court Judge Douglas Federspiel ruled that the constitutional rights of 46-year-old Daniel Woolem of Moxee had been violated.
“We’ve decided for the best of this agency that we need to conduct an internal investigation, and the detective was informed of that,” Irwin said. Tucker will remain on duty during the investigation, he said.
Irwin said that measures have already been taken to prevent anyone in his office from accessing jailhouse calls between inmates and their attorneys.
Previously, deputies could gain direct access to recorded phone calls at the jail during an open investigation. But Irwin said now all requests to listen to recorded calls are vetted through the Yakima County Prosecuting Attorney’s office first to assure that they are not discussions between an inmate and attorney.
Inmates are informed when they are booked that their phone calls will be recorded, with the exception of those to their attorneys. The jail maintains a list of attorneys and phone numbers that are blocked from being recorded, but it is not complete.
Both sheriff’s detectives and county prosecutors have faced recent scrutiny over revelations that they have listened to calls between criminal defendants and their attorneys. Before the Woolem case came to light last summer, officials revealed similar occurrences in the case of Kevin Harper, who had been charged with the triple murder of the Goggin family in February 2011. An investigation into eavesdropping on calls between Harper and his lawyers was called off after Harper pleaded guilty to reduced charges.
In his ruling Wednesday dismissing charges against Woolem, Federspiel focused on three recorded calls in May 2011 between Woolem and his attorney at the time, Tim Schoenrock. A recording of one of those calls was listened to the same day by Tucker. In September, an unidentified person in the prosecuting attorney’s office listened to recordings of the other two calls.
Tucker also listened to another of Woolem’s calls to his attorney. The detective told an investigator that he quit listening to both calls as soon as he learned that the inmate was speaking to his attorney.
But a separate investigation conducted by former Yakima County prosecuting attorney and retired U.S. Attorney Jeff Sullivan revealed that Tucker listened to the calls much longer — one for more than 8 minutes and the other for more than 14 minutes.
Irwin said the conflict between Tucker’s account and Sullivan’s finding prompted the internal investigation.
“The entire time that I have been sheriff, it’s been important to me that I be very open and honest to the public — and if we make a mistake, to admit it, and if something needs to be changed, we will change it.”
Irwin said Chief Civil Deputy Bob Udell is overseeing the investigation, which is being conducted by Detective Sgt. Mike Russell. Irwin said the investigation will not only look at Tucker’s conduct, but also evaluate if his office’s policy over jail calls was to blame.
“Part of it is we look at us, too,” he said. “Was there proper training offered? We just look at all those things and make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
Irwin described Tucker, who has been on the force for 10 years, as a good investigator with a good reputation.
Irwin said the system that allowed his deputies direct access was flawed because deputies had the understanding that attorney calls wouldn’t be recorded in the first place.
“Again, I want people to be reminded that this happened two years ago, and that we have tightened down the system to assure that it doesn’t happen again.”
The two calls listened to by the prosecutor’s office were accessed by someone who had Prosecuting Attorney Jim Hagarty’s user name and access code. Hagarty said he didn’t listen to the calls and that he may have given his access codes to someone in his office. Neither he nor Sullivan was able to determine who that was, and no one has stepped forward to admit to it.
On Friday, Hagarty said he would not comment on the matter until he had a chance to thoroughly review Sullivan’s report, which was filed in court Oct. 25. He also declined to say whether his office would appeal Federspiel’s dismissal of the charges against Woolem.
The county’s Department of Corrections made several changes in the recording system and its policies after the eavesdropping cases involving Harper and Woolem came to light. Among them were the requirement that the prosecutor’s office review requests by Yakima city police and the county sheriff’s office before access is granted.
The jail began contracting with a new phone system vendor early this month, and only two jail officers have direct access to recorded calls, Department of Corrections Director Ed Campbell said Friday. The new vendor offers a variety of technological options that can be programmed to identify calls that should not be recorded even if they are from a number that is not on the block list. The programming of the system should be complete by mid-January, at which time the prosecutor’s office will regain access, he said.
Keeping attorney numbers up to date on the list can be tough, Campbell said. Phone numbers often change and the jail isn’t notified. Other times attorneys list their office numbers but fail to add their cell numbers.
“It’s difficult,” he said. “Any attorney that visits the jail is asked to update their information.”
Campbell also noted that all county jails, and many city jails throughout the state, record calls and that it’s become standard practice for attorneys to ensure their calls are blocked.
In addition, all calls to and from inmates — with the exception of those blocked — have an advisory informing both parties that the call is being recorded, he said.
“The onus of this is on the attorney to some degree,” he said. “This isn’t new technology to attorneys.”