Island Girl: I can see why that cop jumped to conclusions
Editor's note: This is the conclusion of a three-part series by Crosscut writer Ann Bauer, who had an unexpectedly rough landing when she arrived in Washington last summer. The first two "Island Girl" installments ran here and here.
In the end, this is a story about how the system genuinely works — as most, I’ve found, are.
That councilman contacted the island’s chief of police who turned around within a couple hours and called me. He asked me to describe the whole situation, from beginning to end. This took a long time but he was patient. He asked several questions then told me to hang tight, he’d get back to me. It might take time but I could trust him.
And strangely, I did.
The attorney I’d hired for J did not. He was furious at me for having spoken to the police. “You’ve given them more ammunition,” he said. “Their only goal is to build a case against your husband. And you’re handing it to them!”
I wavered. I wished, more than anything, that I could discuss the matter with J whose wisdom I rely on in such matters. But we were still not allowed to speak. So I took a deep breath.
“I think he’s really trying to help,” I said. The attorney sighed loudly and hung up.
From what I was able to piece together, we’d run into the one guy on the force who was known to be whimsical with his power of arrest. And I suppose I can see, looking back, why he jumped to the conclusion he did: He came across a large, barefoot man lying on top of an injured woman and reeking of booze. Other officers might have listened to the story we told, run our licenses and taken into account the fact that at 47 and 43 respectively, J and I had no record of any kind. But this was a man more instinctually reactive. I imagine he’s the kind of cop you want around if, say, you need to be pulled out of a burning car.
Certainly, both the arresting officer’s history and ours had to play into what happened next.
First, the chief spoke to the domestic violence advocate to confirm my story. She then called me to offer a variety of resources, including counseling for my daughter and free emergency housing so I would not need to keep paying for a hotel.
Now mind you, this was still less than 48 hours after the time of arrest. Already, our case was being examined and we were receiving assistance from the county. You can’t ask for a whole lot more than that.
I received a second call from the police chief the following day, telling me he had made a formal request that the prosecutor drop all charges. It could take some time, he warned me again: The county had undergone budget cuts and workers had to take mandatory furloughs. Convening all the right people could be tricky, but eventually it would get done.
Then he wished me a good weekend and told me to call him if I needed anything. He gave me his personal, off-duty cell phone number. He even told when he was unavailable because he would be attending his child’s soccer game.
Early the following week, the charges against J were dropped.
We moved back in together — gratefully, which is not a bad thing for a marriage — and set about finally furnishing our house. Despite the stress this bizarre interlude had caused, and the roughly $2,000 it cost us, I’m pleased to report neither of us said an incriminatory word.
Since the first installment of this story appeared last Monday, I’ve had a steady stream of calls and emails from men who claim that they, too, were wrongly charged. Most of them, frankly, have made me cringe. Especially the two that claimed most domestic abuse is committed by women — which is simply untrue.
Statistics compiled by the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence show there were nearly 50,000 cases of domestic violence in 2006 (the last year for which rates are available), and 85 percent of them involved a woman being abused by a man. What’s more, police are more likely to be injured or killed when intervening in a domestic than almost any other time.
My husband was not abusing me that night in August. Neither were the police trying to bully or railroad us. They erred — extremely, perhaps — on the side of caution. But given the statistics, it very well may have been the right thing to do.
The only thing that grieves me still is that J is the one who paid the largest price — in terms of comfort, dignity, and personal safety — though he was the least culpable. Luckily, he is a decent enough man to put it behind him and move on.
Author's note: This story is entirely true. But I didn’t think it responsible to disclose places or names until it was completely told. So for the record: The island is Bainbridge, the police chief is Fehlman, and my amazingly understanding husband “J”? It’s John.









Comments:
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 8:15 a.m. inappropriate
Whew - glad that had a happy ending. You know how I love happy endings. I'm glad I only have to virtually travel across the country to read you again.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 9:43 a.m. inappropriate
The only thing that grieves me still is that J is the one who paid the largest price — in terms of comfort, dignity, and personal safety — though he was the least culpable. Luckily, he is a decent enough man to put it behind him and move on.
Unfortunately, J cannot put this "behind him." This will go on his record as a DV arrest, and can be used against him in the future (e.g. he gets accused of child abuse, you two divorce, etc.).
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 2:58 p.m. inappropriate
Even if you where able to tell the officers the whole store the Mandatory Arrest law would force any officer to have to arrest someones.
Mandatory Arrest
According to RCW 10.31.100(2)(c), an officer must make an arrest if: The person is sixteen years or older and within the preceding four hours has assaulted a family or household member as defined in RCW 10.99.020 and the officer believes:
(i) A felonious assault has occurred;
(ii) an assault has occurred which has resulted in bodily injury to the victim, whether the injury is observable by the responding officer or not; or
(iii) that any physical action has occurred which was intended to cause another person reasonably to fear imminent serious bodily injury or death. Bodily injury means physical pain, illness, or an impairment of physical condition. When the officer has probable cause to believe that family or household members have assaulted each other, the officer is not required to arrest both persons. The officer shall arrest the person whom the officer believes to be the primary physical aggressor. In making this determination, the officer shall make every reasonable effort to consider:
(i) The intent to protect victims of domestic violence under RCW 10.99.010;
(ii) the comparative extent of injuries inflicted or serious threats creating fear of physical injury; and
(iii) the history of domestic violence between the persons involved.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 2:58 p.m. inappropriate
Even if you where able to tell the officers the whole store the Mandatory Arrest law would force any officer to have to arrest someones. Not to mention how many times DV Victims lie about what happend so there loved ones will not get arrested, in fear they will become even more mad at the victim.
I only post this to say that there should be no blame towards the officers involved. Not to discredit what you have said about your husband not harming you.
Mandatory Arrest
According to RCW 10.31.100(2)(c), an officer must make an arrest if: The person is sixteen years or older and within the preceding four hours has assaulted a family or household member as defined in RCW 10.99.020 and the officer believes:
(i) A felonious assault has occurred;
(ii) an assault has occurred which has resulted in bodily injury to the victim, whether the injury is observable by the responding officer or not; or
(iii) that any physical action has occurred which was intended to cause another person reasonably to fear imminent serious bodily injury or death. Bodily injury means physical pain, illness, or an impairment of physical condition. When the officer has probable cause to believe that family or household members have assaulted each other, the officer is not required to arrest both persons. The officer shall arrest the person whom the officer believes to be the primary physical aggressor. In making this determination, the officer shall make every reasonable effort to consider:
(i) The intent to protect victims of domestic violence under RCW 10.99.010;
(ii) the comparative extent of injuries inflicted or serious threats creating fear of physical injury; and
(iii) the history of domestic violence between the persons involved.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 3:47 p.m. inappropriate
I don't follow, WashingtonStateLaw. Let's say the author and her husband had been able to tell the officers the whole story, and the officers had believed them. In that case, the officers would not believe (i) that a felonious assault had occurred; nor would they believe that (ii) an assault had occurred which had resulted in bodily injury to the victim; nor would they believe that (iii) any physical action had occurred which was intended to cause the author reasonably to fear imminent serious bodily injury or death.
So, I don't see how this law would force an arrest.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 5:42 p.m. inappropriate
Well being someone who works with the police and domestic violence victims, I know its vary rare that police don’t come in to contact with someone, who is a victim, who dose not try and claim that no crime had occurred, fearing that if they don’t try to cover up for their abuser that they will be abused more. Because of that, and because officers are always being lied to when they are about to arrest someone, officers are more likely to believe what they have seen rather then what they have heard.
If the officer dose believe what he has heard, and it turns out to be a lie and he dose not arrest per the mandatory arrest law, he can be held personally liable.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 6:27 p.m. inappropriate
Rightly or wrong, I think the gist of Washington's law is that the cop isn't supposed to take into consideration what the victim says. He is only supposed to consider the objective facts available to him.
"Drunken couple with man on top of woman on highway."
I'm tempted to say it's moronic, but what it is is political correctness run amok and abject cowardice for anyone (in the legislature)not to say, "This is crazy. We all know the real world isn't black and white. Let's put some reality back into this so we don't create REAL victims like "J".
Posted Tue, Oct 27, 10:05 a.m. inappropriate
I don't agree with WashingtonStateLaw on the matter of arrest being mandatory in this situation. I understand the DV law, but there is room for an officer's judgment call - the foundation being a belief that a DV situation has even occurred. It isn't clear from the series of stories how the cops even got involved; it seems they just appeared out of thin air. It could've been called in by a passerby as a near-miss car vs. ped or it could've appeared that J. shoved her out in front of an oncoming. But it isn't like they got a neighbor call reporting loud argument/poss. DV back at the home. There wasn't necessarily any reason for them to frame this as a DV in the first place, except (apparently) for one officer's zeal.
I'm glad the Bainbridge city councilman & chief were responsive to the situation.
One thing I would mention, that isn't covered in the story: if the charges are dropped, that doesn't necessarily mean the no-contact order is quashed. I hope that was part of the scenario that just didn't happen to make it into print. Otherwise, unbeknownst to the Bauers, it's possible the order remains in effect.
Posted Tue, Oct 27, 11:15 a.m. inappropriate
When ever there is a man and woman, in what appears to be a fight, called into the 911, it is labeled as a possible DV, because like island girl said DV calls are the most dangerous calls for a police officer, its better to be safe, than sorry. Plus once the officer arrives and see that they both have the same last name and address on their IDs it is confirmed to be a DV call.
You as a citizen have the right to go to your local police department and do what call a ride along. I highly suggest everyone who dose not know what its like to be a police officer or don’t understand what police officers do or why they do it go. It’s free and takes only 4 hours out or your day. You will get to ride shotgun with an officer and go on real calls. Until you have experienced what an officer goes through every day I don’t think you should criticize how they do their jobs.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 4:14 p.m. inappropriate
I know quite well what's involved; don't need a ride along but thanks for heightening others' awareness of the possibility.
Posted Wed, Oct 28, 11:46 p.m. inappropriate
I have the utmost respect for police officers and others, such as those in the military, who put themselves in harm's way for our sake. However, I don't think that makes them immune to criticism.
But, as debbalee says, thank you for mentioning the possibility of a ride-along. I don't think only those who have done one have the right to criticize, but I am sure it does give one a lot of perspective.
Posted Fri, Oct 30, 2:49 a.m. inappropriate
I love to read interesting post that has knowledge to impart! Thank you for sharing your insights! I will avidly wait for your next blog entry.
Best regards,
Buy Gold
Posted Mon, Nov 2, 8:52 p.m. inappropriate
That was a good story and I am glad it was "true". It was wasn't it? I am glad that it worked out well and it was a big mistake and you are both ok. But like other letters you must accept that one of you were going to be arrested under the visible circumstances as the police correctly have no choice. I have been there and it was no fun and did not end out as happy or humorous as your experience did but it was still right in the big picture that some one went to jail till all was straitened out. I am glad you were both mature enough to accept it and go on with your life. I will look for more articles by you.