Police union defends Jarrett arrest

On Jan. 18, Charles Jarrett was subject to an active protection order issued in Portland District Court. The order stated, among other things, that Jarrett may only possess weapons within the town of Sanford as part of military duty. He must check in and check out those weapons at the assignment and he must notify the plaintiff of such assignment. Jarrett took a shotgun out of a police car without authorization and in violation of this language as read and understood by law enforcement officers and later reviewed by the District Attorney’s office.

Based on the actions of Jarrett on Jan. 18. and after reading the language as written in the protection order, the Westbrook Police had probable cause that a violation of Title 19-A, section 4011 had taken place. This protection order was reviewed and read by numerous law enforcement officials before an arrest was made. The Cumberland County District Attorney’s office was also notified before the arrest was made. After determination was made that a violation of the order had taken place, Jarrett was arrested in Windham. This arrest was by made the Westbrook police, with the assistance of the Windham Police Department.

The arrest was made by ranking members of the Westbrook Police Department so other members of the department would not be put in the uncomfortable position of arresting someone they share work space with and on occasion work with. This arrest was mandatory under state law and was not taken lightly.

Title 19-A, section 4011 deals with the violation of protection orders. Briefly, the law states that violation of a protection order is a Class D crime, except for provisions dealing mainly with counseling, monetary issues, or other civil violations. The exception to the law does not include possession of firearms by a defendant. The complete language of this law can be obtained on-line at the Maine State Government Web site, www.maine.gov.

How police officers handle or do not handle violation of protection orders is often monitored by domestic violence advocacy groups, and rightfully so. Some of these groups also work with and train law enforcement officers.

Maine state law, as written under Title 19-A section 4012, concerns law enforcement agency responsibilities when they have probable cause based on a violation of a protection order. Briefly, the law states law enforcement officers shall arrest and take into custody the alleged offender who violates a protection order. The laws gives no discretion to the police officer in the enforcement of protection orders, they must arrest.

In addition, Westbrook Police Department policy refers to state law and recommends Westbrook police officers expeditiously arrest and take into custody, without a warrant, defendants who violate protection orders.

Police in Maine make hundreds of arrests, maybe even thousands, for violation of protection orders. Some of these violations do not get prosecuted. This is what the police are mandated to do, even if it is uncomfortable or unpopular. Just because someone we know and work with has violated the protection order, it does not give us the right to dismiss state law and city policy. If we did not follow the law, public safety and the public trust would erode.

Westbrook police officers are mandated to make an arrest when they have probable cause to believe a violation of a protection order has occurred. The Cumberland County District Attorney’s office has a different standard in order to prosecute. Their standard is “reasonable likelihood of successful prosecution.” This could be based on evidence, what’s admissible and what’s not, and how they would prove a case.

When police have probable cause to make a mandated arrest, the District Attorney may not have enough admissible evidence to charge the case. Not charging the case does not mean there was no probable cause for a mandated arrest, it is not a criticism of the officers’ work, nor does it mean the officer wasted his or her time in making the arrest or conducting the investigation. It just means there is a difference of standards and responsibilities by the Westbrook Police and the District Attorney’s office.

We know of no police department, or police officer, that would consider it a joke or laughing matter for someone to remove a loaded firearm that was locked up in a metal mechanism, from within an unlocked police car, unload the firearm, and then leave the firearm unsecured in the front seat. The car keys to the police vehicle were left inside so the cruiser could be moved when blocking other emergency vehicles. The keys allowed Jarrett access to unlock the shotgun. The police car was left inside a fire bay so it would be free of ice or snow and could respond immediately to emergencies when needed

More then one member of the Cumberland County District Attorney’s office reviewed the violation of protection order and a docket number was issued. The complaint has since been removed because of a poorly written and ambiguous protection order that lacked the intent of the attorney.

The Westbrook Police Department does not arrest people based on parking arrangements at the Public Safety Building. In fact, the police department shares the building with many other valuable city employees that we work with everyday, including Westbrook School Department custodians, general unit secretaries, public safety dispatchers and the fire department. None of these employees are in fear of getting arrested by the police.

There are changes being discussed about the police department’s policy of securing shotguns. An annual review of policies is good and we should always be looking forward on how we can improve them. However, the police should be able to park their cruisers in a public safety building during snow storms without fear that another public safety employee is going to tamper with them. What happened was an isolated incident and we shouldn’t let this characterize the mood of the Public Safety Building or its employees.

If anyone feels that the Jarrett arrest was based on anything other then what is legally or morally right, we would want them and encourage them to contact the Maine Attorney Generals office. The Maine Attorney General’s office is a impartial professional organization that investigates police in a impartial and fair manner.

This situation was unfortunate, but there are several important points that bear examination. An employee of the city used poor judgment while going through a difficult time in his life and claimed his actions were part of a turf battle. The District Attorney’s office said the protection order was poorly written and ambiguous. The officers did the right thing by arresting Jarrett and would have been hammered and violated law had they not. The hired law firm to investigate a personnel action that later crossed over into judgment of a mandated arrest by police without having all their facts. This was the perfect storm.

The police have a difficult job and it is right for others to question and review their actions. However it is also right and healthy to praise the police when they are unbiased in enforcing the law equally to all regardless of ones position in the community. We praise the Cumberland County District Attorney’s office for having the courage to support the police when the police did what they were trained and mandated to do.

We think everyone has gone through enough and hopefully we can move on and continue conducting the business of keeping Westbrook safe.

Sign In: