photo by: Contributed Photos

Douglas County Sheriff Jay Armbrister, left, and Douglas County District Attorney Suzanne Valdez.

A disciplinary complaint brought by the Douglas County sheriff against the Douglas County district attorney has been dismissed, but a review committee has found that the sheriff’s complaint was not without merit, and it has directed that the DA be cautioned.

A letter of caution is issued when the conduct of the attorney, while not the basis for discipline, is deemed in some way to be out of step with accepted professional practice.

Sheriff Jay Armbrister’s complaint to the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator, which oversees discipline for attorneys in Kansas, is one of several that have been filed against DA Suzanne Valdez, as the Journal-World has reported.

The action by ODA dismissing Armbrister’s complaint found three aspects of Valdez’s conduct that warranted her being cautioned.

The first concerned an April 4, 2022, meeting at which Valdez reportedly threatened that her office would not file criminal charges in any cases submitted by the sheriff’s office. According to the ODA’s letter to Armbrister obtained by the Journal-World, the threat came in the context of Armbrister telling Valdez that his office would not comply with Valdez’s new Brady-Giglio policy, which deals with the obligation of prosecutors to disclose information that may be favorable to criminal defendants. Armbrister was worried that Valdez’s request was too broad and that information in law enforcement officers’ personnel files could be disclosed to third parties, as the Journal-World has reported.

“The committee members believe that Ms. Valdez could have acted more diplomatically … rather than making the threat not to file charges,” the letter to Armbrister read. However, the committee noted that the threat was made in anger during a heated conversation and that Valdez “ultimately did not follow through with her threat.”

The second issue of concern to the committee related to a June 3, 2022, meeting that Valdez arranged with Douglas County law enforcement agencies to address their concerns with her Brady-Giglio policy. Valdez arranged the meeting, as the Journal-World has reported, but left the meeting before any discussions took place, which Lawrence Police Chief Rich Lockhart, as well as Armbrister, found frustrating.

“The review committee believes that if Ms. Valdez would have participated in the meeting that she arranged, it is possible she could have found common ground” with the law enforcement agencies regarding her Brady-Giglio policy, the letter to Armbrister stated.

Instead, her actions “likely created more animosity and distrust” between her office and the agencies. Though her behavior may have shown “a lack of diplomacy,” it did not violate Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, the committee found.

The third area of concern for the committee was the DA’s issuance of numerous subpoenas to the sheriff and the undersheriff to attend court proceedings and answer questions regarding personnel files of sheriff’s employees. The Journal-World has reported on how the sheriff, as well as the police chief, believed that the DA had weaponized her subpoena powers to bend law enforcement to her will.

The committee said that excessive use of the subpoena power could constitute a violation of a rule that bars lawyers from taking actions for no other purpose than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person. The committee, however, urged the sheriff to address the matter with the District Court — to continue to try to quash subpoenas that he deemed abusive — before raising it in a disciplinary complaint to the ODA.

Valdez’s office, when asked for comment on the letter, repeatedly called Armbrister’s complaint “frivolous” and noted that it did not result in discipline for Valdez.

In an emailed statement to the Journal-World, Valdez’s spokesperson, Cheryl Cadue, wrote: “Sheriff Armbrister filed a frivolous complaint against the District Attorney. It was dismissed with no finding that she violated any of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, and Sheriff Armbrister has chosen to publicize this. Meanwhile, Sheriff Armbrister refuses to comment on whether he is taking any action regarding current employees who failed to report instances of domestic violence. Now that his frivolous complaint against the District Attorney has been dismissed, maybe Sheriff Armbrister can finally focus on the core functions of his own elected position. The DA’s Office will remain committed to ensuring the administration of justice for the people of Douglas County.”

The Journal-World asked the DA to share the letter of caution, but the DA did not provide the letter or address any of the ODA’s statements regarding the particular incidents.

The complaint filed by the sheriff, which ODA never described as “frivolous,” is not the only disciplinary matter the DA is potentially facing. As the Journal-World reported, a two-day disciplinary hearing has been scheduled for another complaint on Oct. 11-12. The details of that complaint have not been made public. The hearing was originally scheduled for August, but two members of the disciplinary review board working on the case had to withdraw and the hearing was rescheduled. It was not clear why the review board members withdrew from the case.

Other formal complaints that have been filed against the DA include a complaint filed by Joel Juelsgaard, of Lawrence, who has called for Valdez to be removed from office after a 17-year-old boy was charged with the rape of a 10-year-old girl but the case was resolved through a plea agreement in which the 17-year-old was granted six months of probation, as the Journal-World reported. Juelsgaard told the Journal-World that his attorney, Jody Meyer, also filed a five-page statement and additional documents in support of Juelsgaard’s complaint.

A victim in a rape case also told the Journal-World that she has filed a complaint after she was not informed by the DA’s office that her rapist, Cory Elkins, had his sentenced reduced in 2021 by nearly 30 years after his 2008 conviction and that he would now be eligible for parole in 2025. The DA had concluded that notifying the rapist’s victims about the hearing concerning his earlier release would re-traumatize them, as the Journal-World reported.

Valdez and Armbrister, both Democrats, were elected in 2020.

Editor’s note: This story has been edited to reflect what role Juelsgaard’s attorney played in the complaint process.