By Chris B. Bennett

Co-Publisher/Editor Sheley Secrest handles all of the police complaints for the Seattle/King County NAACP, but she never imagined that she’d be under investigation for seeking out the truth in her volunteer role with the NAACP. Secrest, a law clerk with U.S. District Judge Frank Burgess, filed a complaint – on behalf of the NAACP – with the Washington State Patrol against five Washington State Patrol troopers for their alleged actions as it related to the Nov. 2002 traffic stop and arrest of Omar Wiley. The allegations in the complaint included: conduct unbecoming of an officer, excessive force, false charges, retaliation, and falsifying reports. After Secrest filed the complaint with the State Patrol, a State Patrol investigator contacted Secrest’s place of employment and asked questions regarding her job duties and how they interact with her involvement with the NAACP. The NAACP calls the inquiries by the State Patrol of Secrest’s employer inappropriate and unacceptable. “We’re here to call attention to more racist behavior by law enforcement,” said Seattle/King County NAACP President Alfoster Garrett, Jr. during a press conference addressing the situation. “They haven’t done anything with their investigation (of the allegations against the officers in question).” The inquiry – from a detective with the State Patrol’s Office of Professional Standards/Internal Affairs – released by the NAACP reads as follows:Is Sheley Secrest an Attorney of the Federal District Court for the Honorable Judge Burress?If so, how long has she been employed in the above position? Full or part time?If so, what specifically are her duties for the Federal District Court, and how, if at all, do they relate to her position with the NAACP? The purpose of this request is to verify Secrest’s employment and title(s) as provided in a statement to the Washington State patrol regarding an active internal investigation, whereas she related her title(s) to her involvement in a NAACP complaint involving WSP employees that she accepted and is facilitating. “I couldn’t believe that they’d send (the inquiry) in writing,” continued Garrett. “This is the first incident where the investigators chose not to cooperate with the NAACP, and chose to investigate the NAACP instead.” According to Captain Jeff DeVere of the Washington State Patrol, the State Patrol does have an open investigation with regards to the officers’ actions in connection with the arrest of Wiley, but the first time they had heard of the recent allegations regarding Ms. Secrest was on Monday. DeVere expressed that the State Patrol does have some concerns regarding the communication sent to Secrest’s employer, but was not at liberty to speculate as to why it was sent without further investigation. “We take allegations like this very seriously,” said DeVere. “We are looking into the allegations to determine if we need to take further actions.” But the NAACP maintains that the actions of the State Patrol are intimidation tactics to deter their investigation into the events that led to the arrest and alleged mistreatment of Wiley. Wiley was pulled over by Washington State Patrol Trooper Kyle Burgess while driving to work at approximately 5:30 a.m. as he was headed southbound on I-5. During the encounter, four additional State Troopers responded to the scene, and Wiley was pepper-sprayed, physically removed from his vehicle, handcuffed, and allegedly had a foot placed on his head during his arrest. Wiley was charged with DUI and resisting arrest. The DUI charge was dismissed without prejudice and the resisting arrest charge was dropped. According to a written statement from Wiley’s attorney Stephen G. Smith, who was on the phone with Wiley throughout the incident, Wiley did not sound as if he had been drinking, “his voice was clear and his words were not slurred in any way.” Smith also witnessed, via the phone, the repeated use of profanity as the responding officers ordered Wiley to get out of his car. While on the phone with Wiley, Smith advised him of his rights and was told by Wiley that he had presented his driver’s license, registration and insurance to the trooper. The trooper did acknowledge this in his report as he stated that at some point during the altercation, Wiley rolled down his window about an inch and attempted to hand the trooper his registration and insurance card. However, he stated that he was not able to retrieve them from Wiley because the car window was not open far enough for him to retrieve the items from Wiley. The Trooper’s report of the incident stated that he observed Wiley driving erratically on Interstate 5 and speeding in excess of 80 mph. He also reported that Wiley refused to get out of his vehicle and was talking on two cell phones at the time (one in each hand). The Trooper also wrote in his report that he could smell the strong odor of alcohol on Wiley’s breath and that he refused to take DUI tests, after Wiley was removed from the vehicle. According to Secrest, Wiley kept asking the responding officer what was the reason that he was being stopped, and the officer never told him why, or that he was being arrested. The officer is also alleged to have yelled “open the window”, while banging on the window of Wiley’s vehicle. “He (the officer) said, ‘If you don’t at the count of five, I’m going to break the f–ing window,” said Secrest. “Before (the officer counted down to) five, Omar (Wiley) rolls down the window and was pepper-sprayed.” The statement issued by Smith also supports this allegation, as he stated “I then heard him (the trooper) start counting and as he was counting he did not arrive at five when I heard a hissing sound.” “There was no reason for it to escalate the way it did,” said Garrett. “Once he started to comply, what was the reason for them to pepper-spray him?” “Race still matters in America, and unfortunately they (the officers involved in the incident) haven’t been trained properly,” Garrett continued. In addition, the NAACP is alleging retaliation in the incident because Wiley was not criminally charged in the case until after he made a complaint against the officers five months after the incident had occurred. The State Patrol contends that they have no control over when people are charged. “We don’t have any input into the charging of a person,” said DeVere. “In King County, you don’t necessarily do a citation for criminal charges. It’s sent to the prosecutor’s office and they review the circumstance and determine the charges.” According to DeVere, the timing of the charges depend on current case loads Despite the continued advocacy on behalf of Wiley by the NAACP, the focus of this case has clearly changed with the inquiries of Secrest by the State Patrol. “It is an intimidation tactic to get her to back off from what she’s doing,” said NAACP board member Sakara Remmu. “What is unacceptable is that they would try to intimidate members of the community and this NAACP for seeking the truth.” “Not only do we have a problem with the individual officers at the scene of the incident, we now have a problem with the investigators of the State Patrol,” said Secrest. “The NAACP does not run, and we will not be scared away.” In a statment released after the press conference the State Patrol stated that the situation has been addressed and resolved. According to the release, Chief John Batiste called Ms. Secrest, after the press conference, and apologized for any misunderstanding and that Secrest accepted the apology. However, NAACP president Alfoster Garrett, Jr. has indicated that an apology on behalf of the State patrol has not been accepted. “The State Patrol’s half-hearted apology is completely unacceptable to the NAACP. Ms. Secrest indicated that the apology she accepted was in essence an acknowledgement that the call should not have been placed and a promise that process would be changed to prevent future incidents of this nature. The State Patrol’s apology is completely different than the watered-down mea culpa issued today<" said Garrrett.