Four independent agencies determined that former Benton County sheriff Tom Croskrey had not committed a crime. Benton County prosecutor explains why he was added to the “Brady” list.

Since early 2024, four independent agencies, the Washington State Criminal Justic Training Center (WSCJTC), the Yakima County Sheriff’s office, the Yakima Police Department (YPD) and the Grant County Prosecutor’s office, have investigated a letter that Benton County Sheriff Tom Croskrey wrote to the WSCTJC regarding a Richland police officer’s retirement. None of them found that a crime had been committed.

On July 30, after Eisinger received investigation reports he had requested in 2024 from the YPD and the Grant Count Prosecutor Kevin McCrae, he added Croskrey to the Potential Impeachment Disclosure (PID) List, also known as the “Brady list.” Croskrey had been on the pending PID List while the investigations were ongoing.

Eisinger explains his decision and his responsibility to address PID issues.

In an email to the Observer on Nov. 21, Eisinger explains how he has the responsibility to address PID issues.

“Mr. McRae was the special prosecutor who was assigned to review the incident and determine if a crime had been committed.  That decision was based on the investigations conducted in this matter.  Although he decided that no charges should be filed, our PID Committee determined that it would be appropriate to disclose the issue to defense counsel on our pending cases.  PID decisions are driven by both constitutional and ethical considerations.  Any time we become aware of information that may be viewed by the defense as potentially exculpatory we are required to make the disclosure.  That does not mean that our office has taken the position that anything inappropriate has occurred – only that there is a material issue that is colorable enough that the defense should be informed.  While I have engaged with you in these email  I should inform you that Mr. McRae is no longer the Grant County Prosecutor and has moved to another office.  I do not think it is needed or necessarily appropriate for me to include him in a conversation regarding the PID decision as he was not involved in that process.  The obligation to address PID issues still falls, even in the event of a conflict of interest, with the prosecuting authority in the jurisdiction where the witness may be called to testify.”

In an April 18 opinion, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown provided guidance.

On April 18, Attorney General Nick Brown issued an opinion, “Whether The Name Of A Law Enforcement Officer May Be Removed From A potential Impeachment Disclosure List.”

Brown wrote, “…case law makes clear that prosecutors should err on the side of disclosure in any case in which they are unsure.”

“The more difficult question is whether the disclosure obligation goes away if the factual basis for the potential impeachment evidence is later called into question, e.g., if an officer was accused of misconduct but later cleared of wrongdoing in whole or in part. There is no Washington or federal authority addressing this scenario, and it is impossible to give an across-the-board answer, because such decisions would depend on the specific facts of the case. Prosecutors will have to make careful, difficult assessments in such cases. In Washington, courts have not recognized a legal right that would entitle officers to removal from a Brady list, whereas an incorrect removal presents risks of constitutional violations and could lead to a case being dismissed or a conviction overturned.”

Brady Listings are considered career ending.

Brady listing is considered career ending because it limits an officer’s ability to testify in court.

In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland ruled that to ensure a fair trial, defendants must be told of evidence that could be used to show their innocence, such as internal documents undercutting an arresting officer’s credibility. To comply with the landmark ruling, prosecutors today keep lists of officers with questionable records that must be disclosed to defense attorneys, including findings of untruthfulness, misconduct, or criminal activity.

Croskrey’s letter was part of a city of Richland investigation of their former police chief Brigit Clary.

Croskrey’s letter had turned up as part of an early 2024 city of Richland investigation of their former police chief Brigit Clary by Bellevue law firm Inslee and Best.

That investigation showed that Clary’s decision making may have been compromised when she was notified that someone had made a record request of her former employer, the Federal Way Police Department (FWPD). Clary had abruptly left the FWPD before she was about to be fired for favoring her husband, also a police lieutenant in that department, for overtime assignments and being less than truthful about it.

Croskrey was a police officer in Richland when he vetted Clary before the Richland Police Department  (RPD) hired her. He did not learn of the investigation at that time.

Croskrey becomes involved in a retirement card controversy.

Clary had refused to endorse a retirement card for a Richland police officer because he retired for reasons of job-related stress. The card is a prerequisite to obtaining the federal equivalent under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) that would have allowed him to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the United States.

Clary and Richland City Attorney Heather Kintzley based their decision on RCW 9.41.060(10)(a) that requires that the retiring officer obtain “documentation from a law enforcement agency within Washington state from which he or she retired that is signed by the agency’s chief law enforcement officer and states that the retired officer was retired for service of physical disability, except for those law enforcement officers retired because of mental or stress-related disabilities.”

Croskrey had worked with the retired officer when both were Richland police officers. His letter to the WSCJTC outlined his friend’s professional experience that qualified him for the card but did not indicate that the officer had retired from the sheriff’s department. (see letter below).

Just as Clary was about to retire in late 2023, she suddenly reversed her position and approved the card after the retired police officer made a record request for the investigation of Clary at the Federal Way PD.  In a case involving the discipline of another police officer, Clary also suddenly reversed a decision after a record request was submitted to Federal Way PD.  These prompted the Richland investigation.

Richland gave Eisinger the investigation report.

Richland gave the investigation report to Eisinger who asked the YPD and the Grant County Prosecutor Kevin McCrae to be independent investigators for Benton County. The YPD found no crime and turned the results of their investigation over to McCrae.

Croskrey had also asked the Yakima County Sheriff’s office to investigate the issue and that agency also found no crime was committed.

In April, 2024, the WSCJTC also began an investigation. According to Communications Manager David Quinlan in an email to the Observer on Nov. 19, four 2024 cases have been closed for either “insufficient information” or “lack of justification.” A fifth case was introduced in October, 2024 but the documents needed to proceed with it have not been provided.

Croskrey resigns and a new sheriff is appointed.

On Sept. 30 Croskrey stepped down and the three Benton County commissioners appointed Mike Clark, a Benton County deputy with over 22 years’ experience, as the interim sheriff. On Nov. 21 Clark was appointed to fill the year remaining on Croskrey’s four-year term. He will serve until the November 2026 election.