Lakewood police chief ‘ignoring’ misconduct complaints, union attorney says
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Union attorney alleges Chief Smith redirects misconduct probes to HR contractors.
- Guild seeks restraining order after city canceled recordings of investigatory interviews.
- Judge declined injunction; dispute now proceeds at state labor board (PERC).
An attorney for the union representing Lakewood police officers and sergeants claimed in a Wednesday court hearing that Police Chief Patrick Smith is “ignoring” serious misconduct complaints by not allowing them to be internally investigated.
The attorney, Dan Thenell, said serious complaints of misconduct have instead been sent to Lakewood’s Human Resources department, where workplace investigations are conducted by a contracted law firm. Thenell said that allows the city to try to shield information under attorney-client privilege.
The allegations came during a hearing in Pierce County Superior Court where the Lakewood Police Independent Guild sought a temporary restraining order against the City of Lakewood. The guild brought the action after the city canceled interviews last week with two union members involved in a workplace investigation because the city refused to allow the members to make audio recordings of the interviews.
A spokesperson for the Lakewood Police Department, Sgt. Charles Porche, said the department would not comment on the guild’s lawsuit. He said Smith was out of town this week, and he forwarded him The News Tribune’s request for comment on Thenell’s statements.
Thenell wrote in his motion for the temporary restraining order that Smith was out of town when the decision was made to not allow guild members or its representatives to record interviews.
His claim that Smith was ignoring complaints came after Judge Susan Adams asked him to clarify what the harm was if the city agreed to provide recordings of the interviews at the conclusion of the investigation.
Thenell said he was concerned that misconduct investigations were being outsourced to a contracted law firm. He also said denying officers access to recordings until after the investigation impedes their ability to dispute inaccuracies and provide additional information.
“The guild has every right to protect its members,” Thenell said.
What is being investigated?
Details of the workplace investigation are unclear, but attorneys for the city have written in court filings that earlier this year, multiple guild members filed complaints against colleagues, alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation based on race, gender and sexual orientation.
Peter Altman, the attorney representing Lakewood against the guild’s Nov. 10 lawsuit, stated in a court filing opposing an injunction that, if true, those reports amount to “a pattern of ongoing and deeply concerning workplace behavior.”
“Consistent with historical practices, the City’s Human Resources (“HR”) Division is responsible for overseeing investigations into Title VII and [Washington’s Law Against Discrimination] complaints,” Altman wrote. “Given the seriousness and complexity of this matter, the City’s HR Division retained an outside investigator, Brenda Bannon of the Seattle law firm Ogletree Deakins, to conduct the investigation and advise the City of her findings.”
Adams declined to grant the guild’s request for a temporary restraining order Wednesday, finding that she did not have jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief.
The guild filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the state’s Public Employment Relations Committee (PERC) after the Nov. 3 interviews were canceled, alleging that not allowing guild members to record interviews in disciplinary matters was a unilateral change to precedent.
Altman argued in court, and Adams agreed, that case law clearly states that when an action is filed with PERC, superior courts should decline to exercise jurisdiction, and only PERC has the ability to seek temporary or injunctive relief.
After court adjourned, Altman told The News Tribune he was not authorized to comment on the lawsuit.
Thenell said he wouldn’t criticize Adams’ ruling but that he was “stunned” that the city was interfering with police officers’ rights.
Audio recordings at heart of dispute
Lakewood has said it has agreed to make audio or video recordings of investigatory interviews and would provide copies to the union after an investigation closes but before any disciplinary action is taken. The city maintains that the collective-bargaining agreement allows only the city to make such recordings, and there is no precedent allowing officers to make their own.
Capt. Jeremy Prater said in a sworn affidavit filed in the case that in his 21 years with Lakewood police, he has never seen the city order police officers to not record investigatory interviews. Prater is the president of the Lakewood Police Management Guild, which represents all captains at the department.
“I have never seen an order, such as that contained in Mr. Altman’s email dated November 7, 2025, during my tenure at the Lakewood Police Department,” Prater wrote.
In the email Prater referred to, Altman said allowing officers to record and potentially share recordings of their interviews while the investigation is still open could compromise the outcome, influence others’ testimony or lead to further acts of retaliation. Also cc’ed on the email were a Human Resources manager, the city attorney, Heidi Wachter, and the outside investigator.
Thenell told the court the guild has promised to keep their interview recordings confidential to protect the intergrity of the investigation.
In previous emails sent between the same people on Nov. 6, Altman said it appeared Thenell was trying to obstruct the investigation and said he was wasting time and money.
Altman warned that the city would direct officers under investigation to attend interviews without their own recording devices and could discipline those who refuse, including termination for insubordination.
