Lawsuit Against Oregon State Police

Case 6:19-cv-00315-AA Document 1 Filed 03/04/19 Page 1 of 27
Beth Creighton, OSB #972440

E-mail: [email protected]
Michael E. Rose, OSB #753221
CREIGHTON & ROSE, PC
300 Powers Building
65 S.W. Yamhill Street
Portland, Oregon 97204
Phone: (503) 221-1792
Fax: (503) 223-1516
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
THOMAS CROFT HARRISON, Case No. 6:19-cv-00315
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
vs. (Civil Rights - 42 USC §1983,- First

Amendment, Whistleblower -
JEFF HERSHMAN, TYLER LEE and JEFF 42 USC §1981 - Interference with
PROULX in their individual capacities and Contractual Rights, ORS 659A.030(1)(f),
official capacities, ORS 659A.199 and ORS 659A.203)
Defendants.
JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
I.
INTRODUCTION
1. Pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, Plaintiff alleges the deprivation of rights guaranteed
to him by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the right not to be
discriminated or retaliated against because of whistleblower activities as prohibited by ORS
CREIG H T O N ATTORNEYS
& RO S E , P C AT LAW
65 SW Yamhill Street #300

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 1 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
659A.030 (1)(f), ORS 659A.199 and ORS 659A.203. Additionally, he alleges deprivation of his
right to be free from interference or retaliation in his employment contract pursuant to 42 USC §
1981. He seeks equitable relief, damages, fees and litigation expenses/costs, including expert
witness fees and expenses.
II.
JURISDICTION
2. This court has jurisdiction by virtue of 28 USC §1343 and 28 USC §1331. Venue
is proper in this district pursuant to 28 USC §§1391 (b) and 1391 (e). Defendants are located in
Marion County, Oregon, and the events underlying this Complaint took place there, making
venue proper in the District of Oregon, Eugene Division.
III.
PARTIES
3. At all times material herein, the Oregon State Police (herein “OSP”) was and is a
multi-disciplined organization charged with protecting the people, wildlife, and natural resources
in Oregon, and an agency of the State of Oregon established pursuant to ORS 181A.015. OSP
enforces the traffic laws on the state’s roadways, investigates and solves crimes, and conducts
post-mortem examinations and forensic analysis. OSP was founded in 1931, and represents to
the public that its mission is to serve the State of Oregon with a diverse workforce dedicated to
the protection of people, property, and natural resources. OSP purports that it is committed to
living the values of 1) honor, 2) dedication, 3) loyalty to public safety and citizens, 4)
compassion, and 5) integrity - acting with the highest level of responsibility and accountability in
accordance with the public’s interest and trust.

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 2 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
4. At all times material herein, Plaintiff Thomas Croft Harrison (hereafter
“Harrison”), was and is employed as a OSP Senior State Trooper, working as a patrol trooper out
of the Central Point Office in Jackson County. When he was hired by OSP as a cadet in 1994
and then as a Recruit Trooper in 1997, he took an oath of office to “support the Constitution and
laws of the United States and of the State of Oregon, and to honestly and faithfully perform the
duties imposed upon the member under the laws of Oregon.”
5. Throughout his career, Plaintiff Harrison has dedicated himself to public service
while performing his duties well. Harrison has been recognized repeatedly by OSP, the FBI and
numerous Oregon District Attorneys for his work efforts and successes throughout his career.
Most importantly, Harrison is consistently and enthusiastically commended by the public he
serves. In June 1994, Harrison began his career with OSP as a sworn cadet while completing his
undergraduate degree. In January 1997, Harrison became a recruit trooper out of the Portland
Patrol Office and in 1998 became a certified Drug Recognition Expert. In 1999, Harrison
became a detective and was transferred to the Portland field office of the FBI and became a task
force agent working on the Fugitive Task Force. Harrison was tasked with investigating national
and international fugitives, child abduction, child pornography, bank robberies and interstate
theft. In September of 2001, Harrison became a member of the OSP Special Weapons and
Tactics Team (herein “SWAT”). In 2004, layoffs at OSP brought Harrison back to the patrol
division in Portland. In July 2007, Harrison transferred to the criminal division of OSP in Central
Point. He specialized in investigating child sexual abuse, major violent crimes and officer-
involved shootings for the next five and a half years before transferring to his current position as
a patrol trooper.

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 3 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
6. Defendant Jeff Hershman (herein “Defendant Hershman”) is a resident of the
State of Oregon, living and working in Marion County. At all times material herein, he was a
Captain at the OSP in the Office of Professional Standards (herein “OPS”). He authorized and
condoned all investigation and discipline at issue in this action. Defendant Hershman also took
an oath of office to “support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of
Oregon, and to honestly and faithfully perform the duties imposed upon the member under the
laws of Oregon.”
7. Defendant Tyler Lee (herein “Defendant Lee”) is a resident of the State of
Oregon. At all times material herein, he was a Lieutenant with the Oregon State Police and a
supervisor for troopers in Jackson County, including Plaintiff Harrison. Defendant Lee also took
an oath of office to “support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of
Oregon, and to honestly and faithfully perform the duties imposed upon the member under the
laws of Oregon.”
8. Defendant Jeff Proulx (herein “Defendant Proulx”) is a resident of the State of
Oregon. At all times material herein, he was a Sergeant with the Oregon State Police and a
supervisor for troopers in Jackson County, including Plaintiff Harrison. Defendant Proulx also
took an oath of office to “support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State
of Oregon, and to honestly and faithfully perform the duties imposed upon the member under the
laws of Oregon.”
9. All Oregon State Troopers, including Defendants Lee, Proulx, and Hershman, are
subject to the following Code of Ethical Conduct:
“The Superintendent acknowledges that the citizens of the State of Oregon

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 4 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
rightfully expect and demand that the Oregon State Police epitomize the highest
ideals of ethical and professional conduct. As an employee, I subscribe to and
adopt the ideals set forth in the Code of Ethical Conduct.
As a peace officer, I am the image of penal law and its warden. If I am to be

esteemed and the law I typify respected, I must know my authority well and use it
wisely. I shall neither exceed nor abuse it.
During my private and public life, I shall conduct myself with the highest degree
of integrity and honesty. I shall at all times conduct myself in a manner which
consistently maintains the public trust.
I shall be intolerant of dishonorable or unethical conduct by any person in the

criminal justice community. As an Oregon State Police officer, I shall strive to be
courageous in my professional and everyday life, and will take prudent and
judicious action when faced with danger, scorn, or ridicule.
Although the way I choose to conduct my private life is a personal freedom, I

accept responsibility for my actions while on or off duty. I will not become a
party to conduct that is likely to, or does bring disrespect to myself, my fellow
employees, or the Oregon State Police. To that end, I shall not engage in personal
conduct that affects, or could be perceived to affect, impartiality in my official
capacity.
I shall not use my position or authority for any personal gain or benefit. I shall
refrain from seeking or accepting any gift, gratuity, or favor that is tendered, or
could reasonably be perceived as being tendered, as an attempt to influence
impartiality in my official capacity.
As an Oregon State Police officer, I acknowledge the authority and responsibility

entrusted to me and will use only the amount of force reasonably necessary to
accomplish and fulfill my duties. I consider the use of deadly physical force as the
final option to protect myself or another person from what I reasonably believe to
be the infliction, or threatened infliction, of serious physical injury.
I shall bear faithful allegiance to the State of Oregon and the Oregon State Police
and shall be loyal to the highest ideals of my profession. I will serve the public
with due respect, concern, courtesy, and responsiveness without prejudice. I
recognize the service to the public is beyond service to myself. As a police
officer, I consider it a privilege, and the greatest honor that may be bestowed upon
any person, to defend the principles of liberty.” 1
1
https://www.oregon.gov/osp/about/Pages/aboutusosp.aspx (Last accessed 2/9/19).

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 5 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
IV. FACTS
10. On October 19, 2016, Harrison met with Defendant Hershman and Oregon State
Police Officers Association (herein “OSPOA”) President Mark Banks in Salem, Oregon. They
told Harrison that a personnel investigation had been initiated against Sergeant Jeff Allison,
Harrison's direct supervisor at the time, related to allegations that Allison had repeatedly used the
word "nigger" while officially engaged as a supervisor with OSP in the Central Point Office and
as a Firearms Instructor for the department. In response, Harrison reported his knowledge of
hearing Allison utter the racist term as well.
11. Allison was also a key witness in the Estate of Robert Clinton Box, et al v. State of
Oregon et al, USDC Oregon 16CV13330 wrongful death suit, where Robert Box was shot dead
by troopers Gregor Smyth and Heather West on May 29, 2015.2 During this October 2016
meeting, Harrison learned that Allison’s allegation of racially biased behavior was spontaneously
reported to an attorney for the Oregon Department of Justice during a pre-deposition interview
with Senior Trooper Gregor Smyth. Senior Trooper Smyth was a key participant and witness in
the shooting death of Robert Box. During his preparation interview with the attorney from the
DOJ, Senior Trooper Smyth disclosed Allison's racist statements. Allison is also a named
witness and was Senior Trooper Smyth's supervisor at the time of the shooting and at the time of
Senior Trooper Smyth's complaint.
12. The Office of Professional Standards conducted an internal investigation into
Allison's racist statements by interviewing sworn and non-sworn employees of the Central Point
2
https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2015/06/man_55_killed_in_officer-invol.h
tml

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 6 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
Patrol Office. Interviews were recorded and conducted by OPS Lt. Jesse Orossco and
representatives from the OSPOA were present for all interviews. Harrison was interviewed and
provided a detailed statement regarding his experience with Allison’s using the word "nigger"
while on duty and in uniform. Based on information and belief, the internal investigation
revealed that the vast majority of individuals interviewed admitted being exposed to Allison's
extensive use of the word "nigger" while officially engaged in his duties as a supervisor for the
OSP. The internal investigation also revealed that Allison had engaged in this racist manner for
over 5 years.
13. Allison was not removed from his supervisor position during the internal
investigation of his use of the word "nigger." On December 7, 2016, Lieutenant Lee was
appointed to the station commander of the Central Point Patrol Office. Lt. Lee was unable to be
in uniform or carry a firearm due to an ongoing back injury. Sergeant Proulx, the other
uniformed patrol sergeant at the Central Point Patrol Office, was on extended leave. On
December 9, 2016, Allison became the acting station commander and was the only uniformed
supervisor at the Central Point Patrol Office. Harrison contacted OSPOA President Banks and
expressed the dynamic inappropriateness of Allison being the acting Lieutenant at the same time
of the investigation into his racist statements. Harrison told Banks that it was not appropriate for
Allison to be working during the personnel investigation, let alone supervising the office where
the complaint originated. On December 10, 2016, Allison was removed from his supervisor
position and placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.
14. On December 19, 2016, OSPOA President Banks met with Harrison in Medford,
Oregon regarding the ongoing dangerous and reckless actions at the Central Point Patrol Office

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 7 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
and the OSP's unwillingness to address the issues that were present. They discussed the
unsatisfactory and unexpected placement of Lt. Lee to station commander of Central Point and
OSP's reluctance to take appropriate action against Allison. Harrison urged President Banks to
take action, including having a 3rd party investigator interview the union members in Central
Point to gather a document about the reckless and dangerous actions occurring. Harrison
understood that in making these complaints to Banks that management at OSP would be apprised
of his concerns.
15. OSPOA President Banks took the information from that meeting and shared it
with Captain Hershman, who agreed to do a department-directed "Command Review" process to
determine any issues present and to aid in the transition of leadership to Lieutenant Lee, rather
than the 3rd party investigation suggested by Harrison. OSPOA President Banks advised
Harrison that the department was going to specifically promote Sergeant Sterling Hall to an “out-
of-class OPS investigator” to interview all members of the Central Point Patrol Office. Shortly
thereafter, OSP Deputy Superintendent Terri Davie sent a department-wide email detailing what
the "Command Review" would entail and that it was occurring both at the Central Point Patrol
Office and the Coos Bay Patrol Office, Lt. Lee's previous commander position prior to being
appointed to the Central Point Office.
16. On January 10, 2017, Harrison provided a three-hour long statement to OPS
Investigator Hall regarding numerous issues impacting the Central Point Patrol Office.
Investigator Hall advised Harrison that if he disclosed information that rose to the level of a
personnel investigation, it would be investigated by the Office of Professional Standards.
Harrison was advised that all members would be allowed to read his final report.

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 8 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
17. During the interview Harrison reported the following to Hall:
(A) The above-referenced information regarding Allison and expressed deep concern
that OSP was intentionally not taking the appropriate action against Allison because of the
ongoing wrongful death suit of Estate of Robert Clinton Box, et al v. State of Oregon et al,
USDC Oregon, 16CV13330. Harrison told Hall that he suspected OSP and Oregon DOJ were
withholding the Allison investigation from the plaintiff's attorney to avoid having to disclose the
racist behavior.
(B) That he was concerned that OSP and DOJ were also inappropriately withholding
exculpatory information in the same lawsuit regarding Sr. Trooper Smyth. Harrison told Hall
that he was aware that in September, 2015, Smyth had been involved in a use of force incident,
after the Robert Box shooting, that then-Lieutenant Eric Altman (retired) and Jackson County
District Attorney’s Office believed to be a criminal assault. Harrison told Hall that he was aware
that the Jackson County District Attorney's Office consulted with the DOJ regarding the
prosecution of Smyth. In response, the DOJ created a document “validating” Smyth's use of
force after having a hand-picked internal investigator review the incident. Harrison told Hall that
this document made holding Smyth accountable criminally unlikely and unsuccessful if
attempted.
(C) That the culture in the Central Point Patrol Office was caustic and that clearly
inappropriate and illegal behavior was not being addressed or was being intentionally mitigated
to avoid exposure and accountability. Harrison disclosed gross mismanagement that included
condoning a satirical "award" about Sr. Trooper Smyth posted at the Central Point Office. This
"award" painted Smyth in a highly abusive image and implied he assaulted innocent women and

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 9 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
children. Ex A. Harrison provided this “award” to Hall with the understanding that it was
created by Lt. Lee when he had previously been Smyth's supervising sergeant. Harrison told Hall
that this was also information that should have been disclosed in the wrongful death suit of State
of Robert Clinton Box, et al v. State of Oregon et al, USDC Oregon 16CV13330.
(D) That he had substantial concerns about racial profiling and 4th Amendment
intrusions involving the trooper assigned to the K9 Program out of the Central Point Patrol
Office. Harrison told Hall that the Jackson County District Attorney's Office had not prosecuted
cases of the canine patrol officer for over a year because of ongoing issues with credibility and
tactics. Harrison told Hall that Harrison had turned in the K9 officer to Lt. Altman in 2016 for
intimidating a young male driver into pulling his pants down on the side of the freeway to prove
he was not hiding drugs in his groin area. Harrison told Hall that he was aware that there was a
female trooper present who also reported the incident as inappropriate. Allison was assigned to
investigate the incident, but no substantial discipline occurred and it was unclear how the
incident was documented. Harrison told Hall the current profiling tactics used by the K9 officer
have never been appropriate or legally justifiable.
(E) That he had concerns about the appointment of Lt. Lee, who was ill-equipped to
manage an office and employees that were in such crisis. Harrison showed a clear culture of mis-
management and a lack of focus on the mission of OSP. Harrison disclosed concern for his well-
being as a trooper in the Central Point Patrol Office because of his willingness to confront
inappropriate behavior and the potential for retaliation or harassment because of his disclosures.
(F) That he had concerns about the deployment of resources and the department’s
failed focus on OSP’s mission. Harrison shared that there were concerns about response to calls

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 10 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
for service and an overall perception that OSP was not fulfilling and/or prioritizing its
responsibilities. Harrison told Hall that the current supervision was not equipped to handle the
responsibilities and oversights needed to maintain a proper and consistent management that
served the public appropriately.
(G) That there was an unfair, nepotistic, coordinated promotional plan in the Central
Point Patrol Office and that OSP's promotion process alienated employees that were not currently
in the management class. Harrison explained the "family tree" of the numerous supervisors in
the Central Point Area Command and the conscious effort to control and decide the results prior
to a position being posted. This nepotistic promotion process included violations of OSP
standards on multiple occasions leading up to the command review, including the re-promotion
of individuals previously demoted for ethical violations.
(H) That he believed OSP was intentionally misrepresenting the arrest statistics for
DUII enforcement to the Oregon legislature by not including the geographic location of arrests
made. Harrison explained to Hall that the allocation of resources in the Central Point Patrol
Office was focused on numbers of arrests versus where those arrests occurred. Harrison told Hall
that troopers focusing their enforcement efforts in downtown Medford were not in accordance
with the mission of the agency and it certainly was not what the agency represented the arrest
numbers to mean during legislative testimony. Harrison told Hall that troopers working in other
jurisdictions rather than on the freeway and state highway systems leaves large holes in coverage,
presence and call response.
18. On March 4, 2017, Harrison and Captain Hershman spoke after Harrison learned
that OSP was returning Allison to work, demoting him to Sr. Trooper and transferring him to the

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 11 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
Grants Pass Patrol Office. Harrison expressed his displeasure about OSP bringing a verifiably
racially biased trooper back rather than terminating him, as would be appropriate under the
circumstances. Harrison also asked if OSP had disclosed this information to the Jackson and
Josephine County District Attorney Offices as potentially exculpatory evidence under Brady v.
Maryland. Hershman told Harrison that OSP had been advised by DOJ, under employment law
restrictions, that OSP could not disclose Allison's biased behavior because “they could be sued
by Allison in the future.” Harrison told Hershman that racially biased behavior was Brady
material and had to be disclosed to the district attorney for review. Hershman said that under
DOJ advisement they would not be releasing the information.
19. On March 9, 2017, Allison was subpoenaed to testify in a criminal trial regarding
drug trafficking in Jackson County. Sgt. Jeff Proulx advised the district attorney's office and
misrepresented that Allison was "unavailable" to honor the subpoena, concealing that Allison
was on administrative leave for his racial epithets. OSP inappropriately excused Allison from the
criminal subpoena in violation of OSP policies and without legal authority so he could be
demoted and returned back to work. Harrison contacted OSPOA President Banks and advised
him of this information and development, and requested he investigate whether OSP violated its
own policies.
20. On March 13, 2017, OSPOA President Banks visited the Jackson County District
Attorney's Office to inquire about the actions of OSP in directing Proulx to misrepresent the
availability of Allison for trial and the criminal subpoena. Banks verified that Proulx had not
advised the district attorney that Allison had been on administrative leave obfuscating and
concealing the on-duty racial bias exhibited by Allison.

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 12 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
21. On March 13, 2017, after Banks left the Jackson County District Attorney's
Office, Lt. Lee met District Attorney Beth Heckert at her office in response to Banks' visit.
During this meeting with the DA, Lt. Lee misrepresented to DA Heckert that Allison's demotion
was for “poor performance” and gave no information as to the racially biased behaviors
discovered in the personnel investigation.
22. On March 13, 2017, Banks contacted Harrison by phone and advised he would not
be pursuing either the policy violation by OSP regarding the criminal subpoena or the fact that
OSP did not disclose Allison's behavior.
23. In April, 2017, Proulx and Lee initiated a personnel investigation into Harrison for
alleged “late reports” and for completing online training after the required completion date.
Based on information and belief, Hershman in his role at OPS authorized and condoned this
investigation. As Proulx began the recorded personnel investigation interview with Harrison,
Harrison asked Proulx if he was investigated regarding lying to the district attorney's office about
Allison. Proulx became enraged and left the room. He returned a short time later with Lt. Lee.
Lt. Lee told Harrison that he had ordered Proulx to tell the district attorney's office that Allison
was unavailable for trial. Harrison confronted both Lee and Proulx about the lack of legal
authority to dismiss a criminal subpoena and they rapidly ended the recorded interview and left
the room.
24. The results of the Command Review were shared by OSP with the officers of the
Central Point Patrol Office in August 2017, eight months after interviews occurred. Almost
immediately after Harrison requested time off to attend the funeral, OSP and OPS scheduled a
meeting at the Central Point Patrol Office to discuss and read the Command Review for the time

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 13 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
period that Harrison would be off for a funeral. With Harrison out of town, the meeting occurred
and all officers were allowed to read Hall's report. Harrison learned that Hall’s investigation
essentially blamed Harrison, and two other troopers, as the cause for problems within the office.
All officers then participated in a two-hour meeting discussing the Command Review.
25. At the time of the Command Review meeting, no actions had been taken
regarding Harrison's disclosures.
26. In October, 2017, Harrison, and two other troopers who had been out of town
during the Command Review meeting, met with Southwest Regional Captain Ted Phillips,
Lieutenant Lee, OSPOA President Banks, OSPOA Vice-President Bryan Fitch and OSPOA
Attorney Daryl Gerretson at the Roseburg Patrol Office to have the opportunity to read the
Command Review. Harrison read the document created by Hall and could not believe what he
was reading. The redacted report was essentially blaming him for the caustic environment at the
Central Point Patrol Office and clearly did not document the extensive disclosures and evidence
he provided to Hall. Upon completion of reviewing the document, Harrison asked Captain
Phillips why his information had not been included and why Hall had created a fraudulent
document. Captain Phillips said he would not answer any questions about the report. Harrison
asked again why the information was false and Captain Phillips ended the meeting immediately
and left.
27. In late December 2017 there was a mandatory training at the Central Point Patrol
Office regarding racial bias and how it applies to Brady. The class was instructed by Jackson
County Chief Deputy District Attorney Jeremy Markewicz. Markewicz's class was focused on
how officers lose their credibility through biased behaviors. Markewicz used examples on social

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 14 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
media that have caused other officers to be deemed a Brady officer with exculpatory behaviors
that were career-ending. None of the examples used by Markewicz were even close to as
egregious as the behaviors perpetrated by Allison. The absurdity of the class, in front of every
patrol officer in Central Point who had participated in the Allison investigation, was
overwhelming to Harrison and made clear that the Jackson County District Attorney's Office had
no idea of the truth and depth of Allison's investigation.
28. On December 28, 2017, Harrison contacted Markewicz and personally advised
him of the Allison investigation. Markewicz told Harrison he had no idea of the investigation
and that the district attorney's office had been advised that Allison was demoted for "performance
reasons" by Lt. Lee. Markewicz stated that Lee was aware of the content of the bias class
Markewicz was presenting and had specifically invited him to provide the class to OSP.
Markewicz said he was appalled by the information and would be contacting DA Beth Heckert to
advise her of the allegations of racial bias by Allison and the need for review.
29. During the month of January and most of February 2018, OSP refused to provide
the Jackson County District Attorney's Office the Allison investigation for Brady review and
referred DA Heckert to the DOJ. Harrison was advised by Markewicz that DOJ would not
release the investigation to Heckert, but would refer the investigation to the Presiding Judge of
Jackson County, Judge Tim Gerking, for review for the potential of Brady material within.
30. Harrison requested a meeting with Heckert to disclose his information and
knowledge and to turn in OSP for failing to disclose horrific behavior. Markewicz also disclosed
to Harrison that when he confronted Lee about the disclosure of this information, Lee asked him,
"Who told you this? Harrison or (another trooper)?"

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 15 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
31. On February 21, 2018, Harrison and another senior trooper met DA Heckert in her
office to discuss the Allison investigation and to inquire about other concerns. During this
interview, Heckert shared with Harrison and the other senior trooper the following:
(A) That OSP had never disclosed the Allison investigation and did not advise them
that he was on administrative leave at any time.
(B) That OSP referred her to DOJ for a response and that was not normal for
personnel investigations.
(C) That she believed the use of force incident perpetrated by Smyth in 2015 was
indeed a crime, but the DOJ report made it impossible to prosecute.
(D) That her office had significant concerns about Smyth's history of use of force and
OSP's unwillingness to appropriately discipline him for the behaviors.
(E) That if Allison indeed used the word "nigger" repeatedly in uniform and as a
supervisor, he would be considered biased and be labeled a Brady Officer.
(F) That Lt. Lee had come to her office on March 13, 2017, and told her that Allison
had been demoted for "performance reasons." Heckert stated that was an intentional
misrepresentation of the truth if the Allison investigation revealed biased behaviors.
(G) Heckert was advised of the Command Review and the fraudulent information
within. Harrison expressed concern that the Allison investigation may not represent the truth of
what the investigation actually revealed.
32. Harrison advised Heckert about the Robert Box Estate lawsuit and that it appeared
that OSP and DOJ were intentionally withholding this information from judicial partners to avoid
disclosure of the damaging information for both Allison and Smyth to the plaintiff's attorney as

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 16 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
would be required under the Box lawsuit's disclosure requests.
33. DA Beth Heckert requested a copy of the Allison investigation to determine if
Allison was qualified to give testimony in the future. The OSP refused to release a copy of the
investigation to her, claiming she would have to go to the DOJ to get a copy of the investigation.
34. The DOJ also refused to give DA Herkert the investigation, citing concerns that
release of the information would interfere with the civil wrongful death litigation in Estate of
Robert Clinton Box, et al. v. State of Oregon et al, USDC Oregon, 16CV13330. Instead, the
DOJ gave the investigation to Judge Tim Gerking for an in camera review of the material to
determine if it constituted Brady material.
35. Since Harrison's complaints and whistleblowing regarding gross managerial
misconduct, complicit allowance of racially biased behavior, judicial and investigative
interference by the Oregon Department of Justice and the failure of OSP to transparently disclose
indefensible individual misconduct as public trust and the laws of Oregon and the United States
demand, Defendants and their agents have engaged in a continuous campaign to harass, isolate,
diminish, defame and discredit him, including, but not limited to the following:
(A) Shortly after being appointed Lieutenant, after Harrison gave his statement to
Hall, Lee singled out Harrison by initiating an investigation into Harrison's professionalism
related to a comment over the police radio to a fellow trooper. Lee accused Harrison of being
unprofessional when he told the other trooper, "I want you to do your job" in response to a
mocking question from the other trooper. Lee's accusation against Harrison for
"unprofessionalism" was sustained at a level of discipline that could not be grieved according to
the labor contract, but would be retained within Harrison's file for 3 years. This discipline was

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 17 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
disproportionate and punitive. Based on information and belief, Hershman in his role at OPS
authorized and condoned this investigation and discipline.
(B) Proulx, Lee, and Hershman initiated multiple other personnel investigations
against Harrison for not completing written reports within office guidelines, for not completing
online training within the timeline provided, for not completing log entries within office
guidelines and other low level "violations of policy." While Harrison was being inundated with
nuisance level personnel investigations, none of his peers or coworkers were being investigated
for similar behaviors. Of the two separate investigations into Harrison for Policy Tech
violations, both were dismissed when OSP realized that more than a ¼ of the department was out
of compliance and at rates far worse than Harrison. Other troopers were not investigated or
threatened with discipline for being out of compliance.
(C) Harrison was repeatedly subjected to personnel investigations and received
discipline he could not grieve. Harrison realized the pattern of discipline and the increase in
frequency, over 7 personnel investigations in under 2 years, was an attempt to create a pathway to
termination. Harrison defended himself bluntly and assertively during each investigation.
Repeatedly pointing out to investigators, Proulx, Lee, Hershman and OSPOA that this was
targeted discipline and it was discriminatory and inconsistent with OSP's treatment of their other
employees.
(D) In late August 2017, shortly after the Command Review Report meeting, Harrison
sustained an injury to his shoulder while off duty that would require surgery. Harrison began a
light-duty assignment during the last two weeks of September prior to surgery. In those two
weeks, Harrison was subjected to two personnel investigations and a threat of a third. Proulx

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 18 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
confronted Harrison about his light-duty assignment telling Harrison he had been and would
continue to try to get him investigated for stating Proulx lied to the Jackson County District
Attorney's Office regarding dismissing Allison from the criminal subpoena. Harrison took the
following day off, using sick leave, because of ongoing issues with his pre-surgical shoulder.
When Harrison returned to work the following day, Proulx advised Harrison Proux was initiating
a personnel investigation into him for failing to report to duty the previous day. Based on
information and belief, Hershman authorized and condoned this investigation. This personnel
investigation was then closed a few days later after OSPOA showed OSP that no trooper had ever
been investigated for not coming to work while on light-duty in the history of the agency and that
it was inappropriate in this situation as well.
(E) The day prior to Harrison going on extended leave for the surgery (which was also
the next business day after withdrawing the complaint by Proulx), Lee expressed his intent to
present Harrison with another personnel investigation, this one initiated by Lee, for late reports.
Based on information and belief, Hershman authorized and condoned this investigation.
(F) Lee presented Harrison with the personnel investigation for late reports, incomplete
log entries and timeliness of Policy Tech training in mid-April 2018, the first day Harrison
returned to work from 6+ months of leave and recovery from surgery. Based on information and
belief, Hershman authorized and condoned this investigation.
(G) Lt. Lee, along with other supervisors at the Central Point Patrol Office, have
ceased communicating with Harrison. Since the Command Review, supervisors have only
spoken to Harrison to advise him that he was under personnel investigation or during personnel
investigations.

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 19 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
36. In mid-August, 2018, Lee forced Harrison to sign and acknowledge a document
falsely accusing him of being “unprofessional,” advising that there was an ongoing investigation
into his professionalism. Lt. Lee also ordered Harrison to be professional with "lead workers."
When Harrison refused to sign the document and was advised that it would be considered
insubordination if he did not sign the document and he would be relieved from his duties as a
trooper. Under duress, Harrison signed the document as instructed.
37. The chilling effect of these unwarranted investigations is part of a pattern and/or
practice by Defendants of retaliating against and otherwise attempting to deter those who
exercise their First Amendment rights, thus violating the civil rights of its citizens and, in
particular, its employees.
38. As part of that pattern and/or practice, Defendants Lee, Proulx, and Hershman
have authorized or permitted the use of State resources to harass, embarrass, annoy and
intimidate individuals who dare to challenge the “Thin Blue Line” and expose corruption and law
violations within the Oregon State Police.
39. As part of that pattern and/or practice, Defendants Lee, Proulx and Hershman
have maintained a policy and an atmosphere that encourages the chilling of the exercise of the
First Amendment rights of individuals whose civil rights have been violated by the State. State
of Oregon is aware or should be aware of these practices and have failed to stop them. Their lack
of action to correct these violations effectively endorses, condones and/or ratifies the conduct.
///
///
///

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 20 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
V. CLAIMS
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 USC §1983
First Amendment Violation
Against All Defendants

in Their Individual Capacities
40. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 39 as if fully set forth herein.
41. Under the Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 8, every person shall be
responsible for the abuse of the right to free speech. Harrison was exercising his constitutional
right to freedom of speech by speaking out about police corruption, cover up, unethical actions,
racial profiling and expressing other concerns as described above.
42. The acts of Defendants described herein were taken under color of state law.
43. By retaliating against Harrison and subjecting him to harassment and unwarranted
disciplinary action Defendants violated Harrison’s right to speak about matters of public concern,
which also violated Harrison’s rights under the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution, made applicable to the State of Oregon through the 14th Amendment.
44. Defendants Lee, Proulx and Hershman acted with deliberate indifference to the
rights secured by Article I, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution, and the First Amendment rights
of Harrison.
45. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ unlawful acts, Harrison has
suffered harm to his reputation.
46. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ unlawful acts, Harrison has
suffered outrage, betrayal, offense, indignity, embarrassment, humiliation, injury and insult in

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 21 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
amounts to be determined by the jury at trial.
47. Harrison seeks equitable relief in the form of having his personnel records
expunged. Harrison also seeks training for Defendants, their agents and employees to prevent the
invasion of the civil liberties of Oregonians and to provide accountability for violations thereof.
48. Harrison seeks recovery of all other equitable relief and punitive damages as
provided by law, in addition to reimbursement of his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
pursuant to 42 USC §1988 and 28 USC §1927, if appropriate.
49. Defendants’ conduct toward Harrison demonstrated a wanton, reckless or callous
indifference to the constitutional rights of Harrison, which warrants an imposition of punitive
damages in such amounts as the jury may deem appropriate to deter future violations.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 USC §1983
Retaliation for Complaint about Racial Profiling - Fourteenth Amendment Violations

51. The acts of Defendants described herein were taken under color of state law.
52. By retaliating against Harrison for his complaint about racial profiling,
Defendants violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, made applicable to the State of Oregon through the 14th Amendment.
53. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Harrison has
suffered harm to his reputation.

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 22 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
expunged.
56. Harrison seeks equitable relief in the form of providing training against racial
profiling, implementation of mandatory yearly training in the areas of diversity, cultural
competency and anti-bias training and increased racial and ethnic diversity within the OSP.
57. Harrison seeks recovery of all other equitable relief and punitive damages as
provided by law, in addition to reimbursement of his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
58. Defendants’ conduct toward Harrison demonstrated a wanton, reckless or callous
indifference to the constitutional rights of Harrison, which warrants an imposition of punitive
damages in such amounts as the jury may deem appropriate to deter future violations.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 USC §1981

60. As alleged herein, Harrison has an employment contract with the State.
61. Harrison has the right to make and enforce contracts and enjoy all benefits,
privileges, terms and conditions of the contractual relationship, pursuant to 42 USC §1981.
62. As described herein, Defendants impaired Harrison’s rights protected by 42 USC
§1981 on the basis of his complaints about racial profiling, in violation of 42 USC §1981.

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 23 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
expunged.
65. Harrison seeks equitable relief in the form of providing training against racial
profiling, implementation of mandatory yearly training in the areas of diversity, cultural
competency and anti-bias training and increased racial and ethnic diversity.
66. Harrison is entitled to reimbursement of his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Whistleblower Retaliation - ORS 659A.199, ORS 659A.030(1)(f) & ORS 659A.203
68. By the acts described above, Defendants and the OSP retaliated against Harrison
because he disclosed information that he reasonably believed was evidence of a violation of state
and federal law, and/or abuse of authority, and/or mismanagement, gross waste of public funds,
and abuse of authority in violation of ORS 659A.030(1)(f), ORS 659A.203 and ORS 659A.199.
69. Defendants aided and/or abetted in the retaliation as described above in violation
of ORS 659A.030(1)(g).

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 24 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Harrison lost
income and benefits as a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts.
72. The amount of economic and non-economic damages are expected to exceed the
applicable limits set forth in ORS 30.272.
73. Harrison seeks equitable relief of having his personnel records expunged.
74. Harrison also seeks training and accountability for the invasion of the civil
liberties of Oregonians.
75. Harrison is entitled to reimbursement of his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
pursuant to ORS 659A.885, ORS 20.107 and ORS 20.105, if appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Harrison prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. Economic damages in the form of lost wages and benefits, consequential damages
and prejudgment interest in an amount to be determined at trial;
2. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
3. All available equitable relief and damages in amounts to be determined at trial,
consistent with the claims above against Defendants;
4. Punitive damages consistent with the claims above against Defendants in amounts
to be determined at trial;
///
///
///

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 25 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
5. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses/costs herein, including expert
witness fees and expenses, consistent with the claims above against defendants; and
6. Grant such other relief as is just and proper.
PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL.
DATED this 4th day of March, 2019. CREIGHTON & ROSE, PC.
s/ Beth Creighton
Beth Creighton, OSB #972440
Michael E. Rose, OSB #753221

Portland, OR 97204
PAGE 26 – COMPLAINT T. (503) 221-1792
F. (503) 223-1516
[email protected]
Ex. A
Page 1 of 1

Lawsuit Against Oregon State Police

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Lawsuit Against Oregon State Police

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Lawsuit Against Oregon State Police

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case 6:19-cv-00315-AA Document 1 Filed 03/04/19 Page 1 of 27

Beth Creighton, OSB #972440

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

THOMAS CROFT HARRISON, Case No. 6:19-cv-00315

vs. (Civil Rights - 42 USC §1983,- First

1. Pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, Plaintiff alleges the deprivation of rights guaranteed

discriminated or retaliated against because of whistleblower activities as prohibited by ORS

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

witness fees and expenses.

venue proper in the District of Oregon, Eugene Division.

accordance with the public’s interest and trust.

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

4. At all times material herein, Plaintiff Thomas Croft Harrison (hereafter

duties imposed upon the member under the laws of Oregon.”

Most importantly, Harrison is consistently and enthusiastically commended by the public he

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

6. Defendant Jeff Hershman (herein “Defendant Hershman”) is a resident of the

7. Defendant Tyler Lee (herein “Defendant Lee”) is a resident of the State of

8. Defendant Jeff Proulx (herein “Defendant Proulx”) is a resident of the State of

subject to the following Code of Ethical Conduct:

“The Superintendent acknowledges that the citizens of the State of Oregon

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

As a peace officer, I am the image of penal law and its warden. If I am to be

I shall be intolerant of dishonorable or unethical conduct by any person in the

Although the way I choose to conduct my private life is a personal freedom, I

As an Oregon State Police officer, I acknowledge the authority and responsibility

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

hearing Allison utter the racist term as well.

Senior Trooper Smyth's complaint.

12. The Office of Professional Standards conducted an internal investigation into

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

with Captain Hershman, who agreed to do a department-directed "Command Review" process to

appointed to the Central Point Office.

personnel investigation, it would be investigated by the Office of Professional Standards.

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

17. During the interview Harrison reported the following to Hall:

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

of Robert Clinton Box, et al v. State of Oregon et al, USDC Oregon 16CV13330.

have never been appropriate or legally justifiable.

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

served the public appropriately.

of individuals previously demoted for ethical violations.

presence and call response.

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

DOJ advisement they would not be releasing the information.

concealing the on-duty racial bias exhibited by Allison.

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

discovered in the personnel investigation.

OSP did not disclose Allison's behavior.

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

regarding Harrison's disclosures.

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

no idea of the truth and depth of Allison's investigation.

"Who told you this? Harrison or (another trooper)?"

65 SW Yamhill Street #300

that he was on administrative leave at any time.

indeed a crime, but the DOJ report made it impossible to prosecute.

OSP's unwillingness to appropriately discipline him for the behaviors.

supervisor, he would be considered biased and be labeled a Brady Officer.

misrepresentation of the truth if the Allison investigation revealed biased behaviors.

what the investigation actually revealed.