Lewis County Commissioner Lindsey Pollock says the recent promotion of a detective with a Brady letter indicates there are fundamental culture problems within the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office that create a safety risk for the public.
Lewis County Sheriff Rob Snaza says the commissioner is “picking on” the detective or otherwise using her position to retaliate against the sheriff’s office.
The sharp words are at least partially linked to dozens, possibly hundreds, of phone calls and reports made to 911 and the sheriff’s office by Commissioner Lindsey Pollock’s husband, Ronald Scott Pollock, regarding the behavior of a neighbor over the past decade.
Following the promotion of Erin Willey from deputy to detective earlier this year, the matter spilled out into the open during a public meeting in January.
Fellow Lewis County Commissioner Sean Swope accused Lindsey Pollock Jan. 7 of being biased against the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office due to a complaint filed by her husband against Willey in relation to the dispute with the neighbor.
Detective’s Brady letter and complaint
During the county commission’s regular meeting on Jan. 7, Lindsey Pollock expressed concerns about a $662.05 invoice submitted by the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office to get a new uniform for Willey, who had recently been promoted from deputy to detective.
“Willey already has a Brady letter on file, and is basically unable to effectively testify,” Lindsey Pollock said, referring to a notification on Willey’s file that indicates she has sustained incidents of being untruthful or an issue that places her credibility into question.
Willey’s Brady letter was filed after she was fired from the Clark County Sheriff’s Office in 2018 after the agency received a photo of her wearing a Proud Boys Girls sweatshirt. The group is an affiliate of the Proud Boys.
An internal investigation found that Willey — influenced by an abusive ex-boyfriend — was a member of a private Facebook group called the Proud Boys Girls, sold Proud Boys Girls merchandise and was involved with the group between November 2016 and October 2017.
Willey was employed with the Clark County Sheriff’s Office from June 2017 to July 2018, according to the Washington state Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC).
Willey told investigators her ex-boyfriend’s intention was to get her fired from her job after she ended their relationship, according to previous Chronicle reporting.
Willey worked at the Napavine Police Department between being fired from the Clark County Sheriff’s Office in 2018 and being hired at the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office in 2021.
The Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office issued a notice on Aug. 14, 2019, regarding the Napavine Police Department hiring Willey as an officer, stating that she had a Brady letter on her file.
The CJTC received a complaint against Willey on Dec. 22, 2022, stemming from the incident where she wore the Proud Boys Girls sweatshirt in public while she was employed as a peace officer with the Clark County Sheriff’s Office.
A previous complaint against Willey that was filed with the CJTC while she still worked at the Clark County Sheriff’s Office has been closed, with CJTC declining to file charges against Willey.
After completing an investigation into the 2022 complaint, the CJTC filed a statement of charges against Willey on Nov. 13, 2024, which was served to Willey on Nov. 26.
In the statement of charges, the CJTC states that it received a complaint alleging that Willey “engaged in conduct subjecting her peace officer certification to discipline.”
Discipline could include remedial training or denial, suspension or revocation of her peace officer certification.
Willey has requested a hearing on the charges, which is scheduled for July 15 to July 18.
The CJTC will not determine what, if any, discipline Willey will receive until after the hearing.
“I have been working with CJTC. I am fully aware and I understand the allegations. I understand all these things,” Snaza said during a phone conversation with a Chronicle reporter last month. “I would not put Erin Willey (as a) detective if I didn’t have all the faith and trust in her to do the job.”
Lindsey Pollock alleged Jan. 7 that the CJTC issuing a statement of charges against Willey means that Willey is unable to do her job.
“This level of promotion, when we’re trying to deal with budget gaps, is basically the issue we see with funding,” Lindsey Pollock said. “The funding stops at our desks. And yes, the sheriff is an independent elected official, but when they move forward employees that are unable to do their job, it reflects poorly on us, it reflects poorly on the county and, quite frankly, it sets us up for liability. I think this is something we need to pay a lot closer attention to.”
Lindsey Pollock clarified that the invoices submitted by the sheriff’s office are acceptable under the collective bargaining agreement, but said, “The fundamental issue is that we were dealing with budget deficits. We noted that there was a vacancy within the detectives, and apparently it has been filled by someone who has a Brady letter already and, before the invoices were submitted, and also is subject to decertification by the CJTC.”
Responding to Lindsey Pollock’s comments on Jan. 7, Swope brought up a CJTC complaint filed Nov. 26 by Lindsey Pollock’s husband, Scott Pollock, against Willey after Willey referred Scott Pollock to the Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office for possible malicious prosecution and disorderly conduct charges in connection to his ongoing dispute with a neighbor.
In his complaint to the CJTC against Willey, Scott Pollock alleged that Willey “baselessly referred me for prosecution, accusing me of malicious prosecution and disorderly conduct, after I reported to her that I had been threatened by a neighbor subject to a protective order (I am the petitioner).”
Scott Pollock stated in the complaint that he believed Willey’s motivation for referring him on charges “included interference with my wife’s reelection campaign and was based in part on objection to my wife’s LGBTQ-friendly stance and my own LGBTQ status.”
Lindsey Pollock is not directly named in the synopsis of the complaint released to The Chronicle via a public records request.
In a Nov. 27 email to CJTC responding to notification of the complaint, Lewis County Undersheriff Kevin Engelbertson stated, “We are aware of Deputy Willey’s report being referred to the prosecutor’s office for review of potential criminal charges on Mr. Pollock. This was done after Deputy Willey made contact with the prosecutor’s office to discuss the circumstances of the case, and was suggested she send the report for their review.”
The Lewis County Prosecutor’s Office did not file charges against Scott Pollock.
Ongoing dispute with neighbor
Lewis County Communications call logs obtained by The Chronicle indicate that Scott Pollock called the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office at least 89 times — while Scott Pollock says there have been “hundreds” of reports — between May 2, 2015, and Dec. 6, 2024, to make complaints against a neighbor, identified in sheriff’s office call logs as Linda L. Chew.
In a Nov. 27 email to CJTC, Engelbertson stated, “our office has handled over 140 cases involving Mr. Pollock.”
Scott Pollock obtained an anti-harassment order against Chew sometime between Aug. 13, 2015, and Oct. 25, 2020, call logs indicate.
Complaints by Scott Pollock against Chew include barn animals, such as chickens and ducks, coming onto the Pollocks’ property, issues with Chew’s dog being let out to bark at Scott Pollock, and reports that Chew “mooned” him, waved at him, sang to him, yelled at him, sent him letters and otherwise violated the anti-harassment order.
Chew has previously been convicted of 18 counts of violating the anti-harassment order, according to Scott Pollock.
In a Facebook post late last month — a few hours after The Chronicle reached out to Lindsey Pollock for comment — Scott Pollock wrote that the problematic neighbor moved in back in 2014 and “rapidly became obsessed with me, started harassing me.”
He stated he has called the sheriff’s office about the neighbor “(literally) several hundred times, with virtually no enforcement of anything” and said he “got a body cam” after “deputies started making false statements.”
He claimed “there has been a conspicuous misinterpretation of law” and, while he said most responding officers “have been very ethical and professional,” he accused Willey of maliciously prosecuting him because he “swore” at Chew while she was approaching him with her dog.
Regardless of Willey’s actual motivations for referring charges against him, Scott Pollock said Willey’s actions “have been harmful to me, including by apparently reinforcing the neighbor’s harassment of me.”
Lindsey Pollock reposted her husband’s Facebook post about the harassment and CJTC complaint on Jan. 24.
“It is a mistake to assume my husband will suffer intimidation attempts silently,” she said. “He did not sign up to be in the public eye. He fully supports me, and he unwaveringly advocates for himself.”
Of her complaints against Willey during the Jan. 7 meeting, Lindsey Pollock told Swope, “That specific CJTC complaint against this deputy is not related.”
“It’s just another way for you to take a shot to the sheriff’s department,” Swope said in response.
Snaza’s reaction
Lindsey Pollock has clashed with Snaza over budget discussions as the county faces a decrease of 7.8% in expenditures from the 2024 adjusted budget, according to previous Chronicle reporting.
Snaza said Jan. 24 that he believed Scott Pollock’s complaint against Willey is “going nowhere” because “it’s not a valid complaint.”
The CJTC notified the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office on Jan. 29 that it had finished reviewing Scott Pollock’s complaint and determined that the alleged conduct does not invoke the CJTC’s jurisdiction.
As a result, the CJTC told the sheriff’s office in an email, “we are closing the case without further action.”
Of the comments Lindsey Pollock made about Willey during the Jan. 7 meeting, Snaza said, “My frustration is, you pick on Erin Willey because you don’t like her because she did her job. Or, you’re retaliating and using your position to go after her, after a particular individual, and making that public record. Why would you do that?”
In an email to a Chronicle reporter on Monday, Jan. 27, Lindsey Pollock said, “My comments regarding concerns of promoting deputies with Brady letters and, in Ms. Willey’s case, a letter from the CJTC that they intend to decertify her are based on a concerning course of conduct in the sheriff’s office. Either 1) there were no better-qualified patrol deputies for promotion, or 2) she was promoted over more qualified candidates. Both of these scenarios indicate fundamental culture problems in the sheriff’s office and a safety risk to the public.”
Snaza said he objected to Lindsey Pollock’s assertion that Willey will be decertified.
“I’ve been on those boards. That is a long process, and to get a hearing takes several months. We’re not there yet,” Snaza said. “And if I ever thought that a deputy was going to be decertified for some reason, I would have terminated them myself before we ever get to that, and I don’t believe that is the case with Deputy Willey. I think Deputy Willey is a great deputy. I would never have hired her had I thought that she wasn’t worthy or that she was going to be decertified … She got promoted to detective because she earned it on a merit basis, and she’s doing a great job, and I’m going to support her the whole way through.”
