ALFRED — York County Commissioners have referred a 2011 case that involved allegations of strong-arm tactics by two sheriff’s deputies on behalf of a retired Portland detective and its aftermath to York County District Attorney Kathryn Slattery for review.
The 2011 allegations resulted in a federal civil suit against the county in 2017. It was settled by the insurer, the Maine County Commissioners Association Self-Funded Risk Management Pool, in June. The settlement includes a $39,575 payment to the plaintiff and a $27,924 to the plaintiff’s law firm, both “made without admission of liability which was and is expressly denied,” according to a settlement document.
“Although the allegations were denied in the court case, they were concerning,” York County Commissioners said in a statement released by County Manager Greg Zinser on Friday. “Now that the case is settled, the commissioners are referring the case over to the York County District Attorney so that she can review it and make any recommendations that she feels are appropriate.”
“We decided to let the district attorney decide appropriate action, if any, should be taken,” said York County Commission Chairwoman Sallie Chandler in a telephone interview Friday afternoon.
Chandler said incidents alleged in the suit stretch back years. She said it has been difficult for commissioners to “get a whole picture of whose memory is accurate and exactly how it should have been handled.”
Chandler said the decision to settle the case came from the risk pool and the attorney.
“We don’t have any input into how they settle cases,” she said.
“The claim was a result of a law enforcement action that occurred seven years ago,” said York County Sheriff William King in a statement issued Friday afternoon. “We must keep in mind that in lawsuits, a notice of claim is a one-sided version of events. The county risk pool was faced with an economic decision — fight the claim or settle it, saving the risk pool (and ultimately taxpayers) money. The decision was made to settle the lawsuit.”
The civil suit had claimed physical detention, kidnapping and illegal arrest in 2011 by York County Sheriff’s Office Detective Sgt. Michael Hayes; York County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Wilfred Vachon, who left the agency to work elsewhere in 2016, and former Portland Police Officer Joseph Fagone.
The suit stemmed from a disputed $850 charge Fagone’s daughter had allegedly wanted refunded following a limousine incident at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts, according to documents filed by plaintiffs John Doe and his wife Jane Doe, who had provided the limousine service.
According to the plaintiffs, Hayes and Vachon, on behalf of Fagone, went to the Buxton home of John and Jane Doe on Sept. 1, 2011, where, deputies allegedly threw him to the floor, handcuffed him, put him in a cruiser and then allegedly tried to pressure him into refunding the money. When John Doe’s wife returned home, the plaintiffs alleged that Hayes instructed the couple to go to a bank and get the money. The couple alleged they were pressured into signing a release saying no force was used. Instead of going to a bank, they went to a relative’s home and stayed there for several days.
It is unclear whether an internal investigation ensued following the alleged 2011 incident.
King, now the York County sheriff, was a major with the department at the time.
Sheriff’s Office policies indicate decisions to commence internal investigations are made by the chief deputy, who was Mat Baker at the time. He has since passed away. The sheriff at the time was Maurice Ouellette, who is retired.
Zinser said because the matter was already in court when commissioners first became aware of the case and the allegations, they decided not to interfere or pursue any other possible options involving the allegations, or to refer the allegations for a separate review or investigation.
“Instead, the commissioners deferred to the ongoing judicial process out of respect for the individual rights of everyone involved,” Zinser said on the commission’s behalf. “The matter was ultimately settled on mutually agreeable terms as of June 19, 2018, and the case was dismissed. We hope and trust that during the review process, the issue that took place and any follow up will become clearer to us.”
The decision to seek a review of what had transpired in 2011 and its aftermath comes about three months before the November election, where King, a Democrat, is seeking re-election to his second term. He is challenged in the race by retired deputy Republican Roger Hicks.
Chandler said the decision to seek a review is not politically motivated.
“We are getting emails saying ‘what are you going to do about (this),’” said Chandler.
She said seeking a review by the York County District Attorney is the best option.
King had praise for all of his officers.
“York County has the finest law enforcement officers in the state and we aggressively enforce crime to ensure our community members enjoy a good quality of life,” he said in the statement. “Our deputies are on the front lines and do amazing work with scant resources. The county commissioners have referred the matter to the District Attorney’s Office for their review and the Sheriff’s Office will cooperate.”
— Senior Staff Writer Tammy Wells can be contacted at 282-1535, ext. 327 or twells@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less