Misconduct Charges Part 1: Police, Prosecutors, and a Judge Accused

Damn, Joe, that’s pretty scary stuff. Investigative reporting may be your calling.

Keep us informed.

Joe it might be fair, if you wish to be fair and I’m honestly dubious if you do want to be fair given the slanted tone your article took, if you publish a bit more information about who exactly is suing. For instance, instead of just scanning a portion of the suit, scan the whole thing. Because I just went and asked and was just told who the suer is in some of the incidents you mention and that sheds all kinds of new light on this. Some of you might know Mr Zach Wall as he is a regular star in the police blotter in the Post Register with arrests ranging from drug use, to kidnapping, to battery, etc. Mr Credibility he is not. But hey, more believable than the police right?

Joe goes through a litany of “examples” here…however, they lack alot of substance by leaving out names of plaintiffs. I would like more details than to be left with the last paragraph, “I don’t know the details here, but that is what the courts are for, right? Let us hope our local justice system presents a fair environment for both sides to present evidence and witnesses, and let us hope the truth eventually comes out and justice is served. I am just really surprised none of this has been reported by our local media.”

If the media printed and broadcast all the inmate lawsuits and hurt feelings of criminals that is all the paper would be stuffed with. Zach Wall is a liar and he likes to carry guns and kidnap people. He also likes to shoot meth up as well. He is a real creep that causes nightmares for many of my friends kids that dealt with him. If this is the main basis of Joe’s story then this reporting is no better than the National Enquirer.

Joe, naming plaintiff’s names isn’t enough. Who are these people? Criminal records? Outstanding citizens or Zach Walls to a greater or lesser degree? These days, if some people get a call from a cop, they feel “harrassed” and want their mommies and file complaints just because the cop scowled, has a mustache, doesn’t have a mustache, is bald, has hair, et cetera. If you want this to be an investigative piece, tell the other side of the story. But you’ll just say you’re not a journalist. . .
These kinds of stories are notoriously difficult to report becuase of the he-said, she-said nature of the claims, the credibility of the witnesses and plaintiffs, not to mention the fact that cases actually evolve beyond the point of what is available in court documents, from which I’m sure you’re quoting. Check out any newspaper or local TV news across the nation and you’re not going to see a lot of this kind of stuff reported, for these very reasons.

I can see why Joe is not a journalist on this case. Check these facts out. If Joe looked up the case from the picture of the criminal filing above he would have known these tidbits that are facts:

There were two lawsuits filed here in Bonneville County: CV-07-3863. This suit was a result of a drug bust conducted by Bonneville County Sheriff’s Deputies on Harry Burke. Burke and some friends were selling drugs. They got busted. The case was filed 6/29/07. Motions were filed with Judge Gregory Anderson by both sides. A hearing on the motions was held 8/9/07. The Case was dismissed on 8/10/07. The defendant(s) attorney was Victor Bunitsky…keep this fact squirrled away for later.

The second case, CV-07-3687, was also filed 6/29/07 against Idaho Falls Police during another drug bust. Judge Richard St. Clair was presiding in this case. Interestingly, on 8/10/07, the Plaintiff’s…yes, the Plaintiff’s filed a voluntary motion to dismiss their own lawsuit on 8/10/07 as well (the date of the dismissal on the earlier case). The attorney of record here is also Bunitsky.

So, to sum these up–Bunitsky is the attorney of record in both cases. He has represented all these felons for years. (I will get into their lengthy individual criminal records momentarily). Bunitsky is known for filing frivilous lawsuits. He is also known for filing these suits to try and get leverage against the prosecutor and/or in exchange for lighter sentences to make the suits go away. Standard Procedure for this defense attorney? IMO yes.

Bunitsky gets a hearing before two different judges…results are both cases are dismissed. Why does Bunitsky file a voluntary motion to dismiss his second lawsuit? Probably because his bluff got called on the first case and he could see the writing on the wall.

So, how about the background of these “innocent defendants”:
Harry Jess Burke-Numerous criminal cases (16 total) in Bonneville County. Some are just No Insurance and Traffic. However, he is a convicted felon in 1994 for Possession of Controlled Substance (PCS) with Children Present and Intent To Deliver. He was arrested 9/06 for PCS, Drug Paraphernalia, and Possessing a Concealed Weapon. He didn’t learn his lesson. He was arrested again 6/07 for PCS.

Tamara Jo Wiscombe–Charges for PCS in Bingham County and charges for PCS in Bonneville County in 2006 and 2007.

Mecheal A. Andersen–24 criminal cases in Bonneville County. 2/07 Delivery of CS, 4/07 Drug Trafficking, and 2001 Deliver CS conviction.

Yvette Klingler–23 criminal cases and even one case of not paying child support. 2/07 Delivery, 2003 PCS, and 2001 Delivery Conviction.

Stephanie Jo Taylor–4/07 PCS with Intent to Distribute, 2003 Forgery (Amended to Abusing a Vulnerable Adult–probably stole an old persons checks while in a care giving role).

So, all in all this story is much ado about only one thing: a defense attorney trying to save his clients through use of frivilous lawsuits because none of them can seem to obey the law and cease selling drugs in our town. Joe, I really think you didn’t do your homework on this one and crashed badly.

No, I don’t believe he’s way off here. Two years ago if anyone had said the same things about Kimball Mason nobody would have believed it either. I have personal knowledge of one of the officers named in the suit making harrassing phone calls so I believe it could be true.

I talked to a person in narcotics. When they arrest people who have been selling, they often look at the numbers recently called on the cell phone(s) and numbers received on the phone(s) to find out who they may have sold to or who else might be involved. Sometimes, they even call those numbers up to talk to that person and try and ascertain who it is. I guess some people might see this as harrassment….especially if they are trying to buy drugs or sell them…but I would think the police were negligent if they didn’t follow up on all available information.

All of this word “allegedly” is thrown around to make it okay to throw out statements like the above posts. It is getting old and raises my level of suspicion about your sources Joe.

Mike, I have a pretty good recollection of what some of the harrassing calls were. But I’ll tell you what, I will double check with the people who know and make a post when I have more accurate information. I wouldn’t want to give you any ammunition with which to attack me.

Joe, I totally agree with your comments on Mike’s M.O. when he disagrees with a person.

I think you start by supplying all the facts of the story. For example, that the suits were filed within weeks of these parties getting bust on drug raids. The fact that BOTH lawsuits were dismissed, one of which was dismissed by the parties filing the suit. This makes the ‘allegations’ go away and diminishes their credibility when the very source of the ‘allegations’ voluntarily sweeps away their own suit and other judges that are not tied to the original story agreed to dismiss the cases.

As for attacking the person, I could care less about whether you wrote this or if Slim or CR67 wrote them. It is about throwing out these allegations as still relevant when the very purveyors of these ‘allegations’ withdrew them under scrutiny. This makes them less than credible and frankly, they don’t even hold water as allegations. Yet, the way the article was worded, all the police, courts, and prosecutors in this town are corrupt and crooked. I take issue with that (even with Kimball Mason’s problems). This community has alot of honorable men and women that work hard every day to protect you and your family). Publishing allegations is all well and good; however, I think it is important to gather all the objective facts and put them in the story. Joe, I don’t think you put all the available facts in your story.

So, just because you said these were allegations doesn’t excuse that important details were left out. I have no idea whether it was by design or lack of research. However, when you are talking about spreading the word about allegations that impugn a person’s credibility and standing in the community this is important to note the whole picture that is known at the time. In part 2, you make a reference that media outlets report information known to them at the time and let it ride as the story builds. In this case, the media never rode the story because there was nothing there to begin with besides disgruntled drug dealers and an attorney that takes dope money to spin a good yarn of police and prosecutor corruption.

Let me bring an example home to you: If someone were writing allegations about Joe Vandel…let’s say someone was saying you were charged with dog fighting, wouldn’t it be fair for the person writing about the allegations to note that the ‘allegations’ were dismissed and furthermore, that the person(s) making the allegations voluntarily withdrew the allegations in a second case. Wouldn’t that make for a more balanced story and most importantly, wouldn’t that be fair to the accused? Or should the accused just be left hanging out to dry with no mention of what else has transpired? It probably isn’t as juicy as you would like for ratings on here but alas all I am saying is print all the story–not just a fraction of it that gets everyone worked up. If you suceed at doing that you can label them allegations all you want–if that is what fits. In this instance, to answer your earlier question: you could have said unsubstantiated allegations that have since been dismissed. After all, that is what happened. Why not report the truth?

You go Joe!
After the KM mess I think we all need to listen more carefully to the other guy.
Thank you

I want you to know I did take a few hours to consider your points. I reread all of the article and comments again. I truly think you are making this a bigger deal than it is.

I put out the information I had, the facts of the materials I had. It was clearly not the whole story, and you had the chance to fill in another part of it. That’s how the site functions.

I still feel I presented the information fairly. It sounds harsh because the allegations are harsh. I never said “this is what happened”; I said this is what’s alleged and I know you haven’t heard it anywhere else. I’m sorry the word “alleged” upset you, but I will not claim something so serious as these allegations are true until it has been proven in a court of law.

You appear to have been upset from your first comment on that this was published at all.

I will not question your motives, but I have noticed you are often upset at this website, the information presented, and how it is run. I really do not know how to help you with that.

I do not feel bad about this article in the least. It was public information, significant for the public to know, and nobody else had reported it. I don’t feel I’ve done a “hatchet job” on anyone. I presented what I had and you presented what you had.

I also noticed also that for all the explanations, comment 20 was never explained. That appears to be a sticky point.

The lawsuits could have been dropped for many reasons, but that perjury and cellphone incident may have still happened. This is regarding an officer that has had questionable issues publicly raised before.

I think you both made excellent points and I’ve enjoyed reading your posts.

This is certainly an interesting article. I was shown this website only recently and have never read or written anything here before. The person who asked me to read this is involved in this case and it appears from many of the commentators here, that we are in the minority. It’s interesting how many people will express such a strong opinion on a subject they don’t know anything about.

I was in court that day and it was standing room only. It was clear from the beginning that the judge didn’t want this hearing held or the testimony given. Half the time he wasn’t even paying attention and the other half, he was hassling the defense lawyer. He agreed with everything the prosecutor said though. Since Moulton was going on trial the next morning in the case he ended up settling out of court for $50,000 of our money, I have no doubt the judge didn’t want any more ammunition handed to the lawyer in that case.

Again, I was there. Moulton did perjure himself and when Mr. Bunitsky caught him, he couldn’t lie his way out of it. He admitted to having the cell phone, which was proved by the evidence. He testified that he had only answered calls or returned calls that he had been cut off from. When the cell phone bill was shown to him, it showed the calls were outgoing. He was not returning calls. That’s perjury. That’s when he said some other officer must have done it. When Mr. Bunitsky began pushing him about the threatening phone calls, one as late as 3:30 in the morning, when Moulton was supposed to be off duty, he couldn’t answer the question. He was asked several times and when he couldn’t answer, the judge leaned over and told him what to say. You could have heard a pin drop. Even the most inexperienced of us knew he wasn’t supposed to do that.

A man took the stand and testified that he had received a threatening phone call after midnight from this cell phone. This man worked for the owner of the cell phone so he recognized the number but not the voice. The caller said he was outside his home and was going to shoot him and his family. The circumstances scared him so he called his probation officer to ask permission to leave his home for the rest of the night. His probation officer was supposed to testify but he left so he couldn’t be called to the stand. At the end of the hearing, the judge actually said that this kind of use of the cell phone was not outside the norm. I found that particularly unbelievable so I did some checking. What I was told was that if an officer takes something like a cell phone or computer when they arrest someone, they’re supposed to get a search warrant from a judge before trying to take information out of it. And it should be handled by a detective, not a patrol officer. The police could subpoena the names of the cell phone numbers and check their criminal records before making any contact. My mother’s phone number is in my cell phone and it would piss me off if someone had my cell phone and called her in the middle of the night like that. This seems so obvious to me. These two officers aren’t teenagers making prank calls to a random number to ask if they have Prince Albert in a can or if their refrigerator is running. They were calling people they didn’t know in the middle of the night and threatening to kill them! The woman who received the call at 3:30 in the morning was there but there wasn’t time for her to testify. She was terrified, but determined to do the right thing. She has no police record, by the way. She is a middle-aged single woman who had hired the owner of the cell phone to do some contracting work. That’s why her number was in the cell phone. Talk about an innocent bystander. And since I know the people charged, I have seen the cell phone bill and the probation officer’s report, both of which prove the phone calls and what was said.

Since the hearing was about Moulton mishandling the evidence, testimony was given about the stuff that had been taken. Neither officer could explain why they didn’t have the same evidence at the end of the night as they did when they took it. Again, the judge said that’s not a big deal. I think it’s a big deal. If there is stuff missing, who took it? The cops were the only ones who had it. The judge refused to let Mr. Bunitsky go into the police department procedures for handling evidence and neither officer would answer questions about it. You don’t have to be Albert Einstein to know evidence is supposed to be locked up as soon as possible. The officers admitted they were passing it back and forth for hours while they were out on patrol in separate cars even though they went back to the police station, and the amount of evidence taken did not match up to what was turned in. How can the judge think this is no big deal?

Afterwards, Chief Livesey was waiting outside the courtroom for Moulton. He patted him on the back and they walked away together and he was obviously very supportive of his officer. I find that a bit scary. I think a boss should be supportive of his people, but in this case, Livesey’s support for Moulton was wrong. Up to that point, since I have never been charged with a crime, I had no opinion of Chief Livesey. I lost all respect for him that day.

Also after the hearing, I learned that when the judge called the lawyers back to his chambers before the hearing started, he was trying to prevent the man who got the threatening call from testifying. I wasn’t there so I don’t know how Mr. Bunitsky got past the judge on that one, but it says a lot to me about the judge that he was trying to keep this testimony off the record.

I also know that one of these people was arrested and charged in another case which took four months to get dismissed even though he hadn’t done anything illegal. I think that’s called false arrest. So at least one of these lawsuits is coming back now because they weren’t dismissed because they were wrong. They were dismissed and withdrawn because the criminal cases had to be finished first. The only reason they were filed before the criminal cases were over was because after this hearing the judge took all Mr. Bunitsky’s cases off the court calendar and refused to put them back on until he was ordered to by a higher ranking judge – because of the lawsuits. I think he was ticked off at Mr. Bunitsky for pointing out his bad behavior in court. And from what I saw, the judge was trying to protect Moulton. I understand the whole point of this article was whether or not the press should have reported these lawsuits. They were in court, and at least one of the reporters picked up on how wrong it was for the judge to be testifying. I heard her talking to the lawyer after court and she asked him about it but never reported it. Why not?

“Mike” said that Mr. Bunitsky files a lot of frivolous lawsuits. I guess that brings us back to the point again. What lawsuits? I haven’t heard of a single lawsuit he has filed before these. Is this just another example of the press not telling the public about it or is this a lie? It sounds to me like “Mike” is so determined to defend the police, no matter what, that he’s willing to lie. But I could be wrong. I will happily take back that statement if “Mike” can give us an example of another lawsuit Mr. Bunitsky has filed before these, frivolous or not. “Mike” appears to be in the know, and seems to have access to information that mere citizens don’t. Is there a way to look this up in the court computers? Can you answer, “Mike?”

I would put pressure on the Post Register and the tv stations to do a better job of reporting these lawsuits, if they exist, or I’m sure people would like to know that if they hire this lawyer, he’s a fraud, if what “Mike” says is true. And when did Mr. Bunitsky share offices with John Stosich? I heard Mr. Bunitsky worked alone. And what has that got to do with this article? I also know for a fact that Mr. Bunitsky has not represented these individuals for years, but rather for only a few months, as if that mattered somehow. “Mike” is so worried about someone’s reputation being sullied, but it appears he has no problem attacking Mr. Bunitsky’s reputation with what appears to be outright lies or did I miss “Mike” saying his comments about Mr. Bunitsky were “allegations?”

But I’d also put pressure on the new chief to do something about this kind of thing. This has been testified to and proved by the cell phone company and the probation officer. Even if I committed a crime, I have certain rights. It appeared to me that the officers tampered with the evidence, harassed and threatened innocent people, and stole something (cell phones are billed by the minute so the owner had to pay for the officer’s phone calls). I wouldn’t want that happening to me. And I would also not like to be one of the people who got a phone call like this at 3:30 in the morning from someone I didn’t know. And I would be doubly unhappy to find out later it was two police officers who called me and that a judge said it was okay. I think this should have been reported on and when the lawsuits come back, they should be reported on.

I don’t think someone like O.J. should get off, but cops shouldn’t be allowed to tamper with evidence or to perjure themselves or commit any other crimes either and when they do, there should be consequences, not cover-ups and denials. At least in O.J.’s case the judge didn’t try to participate in the cover-up but stood up like a man and held their feet to the fire. From my limited experience, that’s the only way I can see to keep it from happening again. I honestly don’t know whether these people are guilty or innocent of a crime, but because of what Moulton and Poulter did that night, we don’t have any way of knowing for sure now and we all get to pay for that in more ways than one. Just like they’re paying in North Carolina for the Duke fiasco. Not every prosecutor, judge and police officer was corrupt in that case either, and I didn’t hear Joe saying they’re all crooked here, as “Mike” has “alleged” Joe is saying. But as we’ve seen, the man in this case was also falsely charged and it took four months to get the charges against him dismissed. It happens. Not everyone arrested is guilty.

Sorry this is so long. I just wanted to put in my two cents worth since I was there and have information that isn’t available to everyone.

Idaho Vet,
Do you have a court case number or something to verify these accusations? If it happened in a court room it was recorded and is public record.

Idaho Veteran,
I haven’t read the comments in this section for a while but these case numbers will have to be looked up at the Law Library. I’ll check it out and get back to you.

ID VET, There are criminal records and there are CRIMINAL RECORDS but these people you speak of, ID Vet, take the cake. I looked up the case numbers you provided, at the Law Library in the Courthouse, and it looks like these people deal / use drugs, and have been charged and convicted of it.
Everybody knows and this is true in IF as well…if you hire an attorney worth his or her salt you will get off of the original charge or have it reduced / dismissed. DUI and Drug offenses are a great example. Just because someone is charged with a crime doesn’t make them guilty but just because it was reduced / dismissed doesn’t make them innocent. It’s also common knowledge that Methamphetamine makes people paranoid, maybe your friend(s) need to change their lifestyle and stop selling / using drugs.
The Courthouse Law Library is open to the public and is free unless you want to print something off.

I think Joe made the whole thing up…however I am way to lazy to look anything up to prove this.

If you are so concerned go get the transcript and publish it here. The defendants in all this mess are dope dealers and users. They are not credible. It is amazing that just because an officer actually does his job that he is somehow a crook. I know alot of cops that really do sit around and eat donuts and do nothing. Moulton isn’t one of them…because he is agressive against the dope dealers in this town and takes action he gets thrown under the bus by the poster above based on innuendo. We have a track record with these other defendants. They are convicted felons. It’s nice to know some citizens of Idaho Falls actually still believe the police over felons that deal dope.

This is exactly what their attorney wants the court and public to think…that the Officer lied. Forget the fact that his clients were caught with drugs, forget the fact that they have been caught with drugs since (more likely than not). Its a tactic this attorney uses because he has nothing else to argue. We should assume that the police tell the truth…and we should assume that drug dealers lie, it’s the nature of their malfunction. Show me a drug user / dealer and I will show you the lowest common demonitator in our state.

I’m refering to the court docs available, to the public, at the law library in the courthouse. I got the case number from ID Vet. The program is called ISTARS. It can tell you any charge from a traffic ticket to possession of drugs for anyone who was charged in the state. I also searched the people mentioned in the case #’s given and got newer charges.

The history of these folks that were hanging out at Harry Burke’s house, as well as Harry himself are easy to see. They are convicted felons and have charges to deal with. It’s also nice to note that Harry is the cousin of the infamous Paul Ezra Rhoades that is a convicted serial killer. Harry used to do dope and one day he was out dancing around in a pink tutu. He is crazy as a loon and people want to take him seriously? And the other folks are also a bunch of real nice folks…..read my post from August 30, 2007 @ 0943 a.m. for all the skinny on the cast of defendants vs. Moulton. Judge for yourself but I will take Moulton over that bunch any day of the week.

It is really nice to note that there is no demonizing going on here……I only wish it were true. If Idaho Vet and Frank have some transcripts to publish for us then let’s see them. Otherwise, what we have is a lot of innuendo and conflicting stories from supporters of the defendants and another poster on here that said they were also present at the hearing when the alleged perjury occurred.

Seems like alot of sour grapes on behalf of defendants that can’t seem to keep themselves out of trouble and enjoy using drugs more than being productive. We saw the same type of allegations about Moulton regarding an arrest at a local bar of a woman that was out of control. The voice recording of the incident spoke alot about the fact that she was lying up a storm on that one.

Another point that is lost in this discussion Moulton is exactly that…..it’s not all about Moulton. There were over 10 officers involved in these multiple drug busts. So, unless we are now implying conspiracy theories that all the officers conspired to frame these repeat offenders then it would be good to slow down, lay off the kool aid, and recognize that if these defendants had not be engaged in felonious behavior they wouldn’t have to deal with Moulton or any other cops for that matter.

Its human nature that when your in trouble that you will either lie or minimize your own culpability. Therefore when a drug user gets arrested and makes claims against a cop it should be taken with a grain of salt. And when claims come in from that drug users friends you should also take it with a grain of salt. Given that the IFPD has FIRED two officers within the last year for things they did I think its pretty safe to say that if Moulton truly had perjured himself they would have taken action. TWO FIRINGS in just the last year show that they do take violations seriously. And lest anyone think that the offenses these two officers took are so egregious let me say briefly that one involved a mishandling of a call and the other involved off duty employment. Neither amounted to a felony like perjury which is what Moulton is claimed to have done. And this was all under Livsey’s adminstration and he wasn’t shy about firing officers or forcing them to resign. The list of officers who did one or the other during his twelve years is long. And thats not bad thing as all police agencies are going to have officers do bad things from time to time. Where they should be judged is how they handle it when it happens.

But my question to you is, do we allow the police to do whatever necessary (even illegal) to get the job done? I don’t want thieves, drug dealers, abusers,etc. out on the street. Isn’t that what the court systems are for. And then that brings me to what the judge “alledgedy” did. Someone please tell me that the transcript verifies this.

One more thing. The police officer that has the highest arrest record, is that because he is doing things that aren’t legal? It makes me question.

And Mike, please, instead of saying that these officers are perfect and the that everyone lied about everything. Tell me how many times people have lodged complaints about the officers in question. I believe that is what you are asking Joe to do. Give all the facts. And one more thing. “Not paying child support” why dive that example? Is that the worst thing that they had done?

Just my two cents… Well I don’t even think it is worth that.

Mike, once again I applaud your ability to stand up for your beliefs, even in the face of some extremely negative comments….I don’t know the situation at all (I no longer live in the area) but I agree that people seem ready to jump on the “the cop is crooked!” bandwagon sometimes. Just my opinion….

I’m lost.

One for the City says“…forget the fact that they have been caught with drugs since (more likely than not)…”

and Idaho Vet says “I have seen the copy of the request to dismiss the charges typed up by the prosecutor. The case was dismissed because these people did NOT have drugs on them or in their house. The guy was falsely accused and falsely arrested.”

They can’t both be true, so what’s the story? Did they get caught with drugs again or didn’t they? Who caught them?

So Idaho Vet wasn’t being truthful about the charge since this arrest being dismissed by the prosecutor? Now my curiosity is really aroused. You say the ISTARS thing is at the courthouse? Next time I’m over that way, I think I’ll go check it for myself. Actually you said they had charges “since”. By that I’m assuming you mean since the charges that resulted in the lawsuit? Can I tell from ISTARS when the charges were filed? Like dates and things? Does ISTARS show the documents too or do I have to see a clerk or somebody for that?

“probably because they worked it off through selling info.”

So is Idaho Vet being dishonest about the drug charge being dismissed because the guy was innocent? It doesn’t sound like, from what you’re saying, that ISTARS is going to show that, only dates and charges. How do we find out? I went back and read your post and I think we’re talking about two different things. I’m talking about the guy being falsely arrested (according to Idaho Vet) and it seems you’re talking about the lawsuits. If a little fish turns against a big fish, I’m all for that, but I don’t think we want to out the guy either if he did. That’s a pretty serious thing to do to somebody, in my opinion, even if he was a drug dealer. Some of these big fish are pretty scary, aren’t they?

ISTARS will show when the charge was filed. It will also show several defendant’s motion to supress (the evidence). It will also show most of these motions being denied. This is important because suppression hearings are usually based on police misconduct, i.e. not having a warrant, failure to advise one of their rights, improper chain of custody, etc…. As for the lawsuits, it will show the plaintiffs, in this case the drug users filing their suits then dismissing them on their own. This is a common tactic used by defense attorneys to put pressure on the prosecutor to deal.

Idaho Vet can’t rightly say the cases were dismissed because the guys were innocent–in fact, some cases are still pending–thus, that statement is VERY incorrect on it’s face. I think the police report idea is a good one. The other post was also on the mark, there were numerous officers involved. It is not a conspiracy of one rogue cop hellbent to see Harry Burke and his dope dealing friends get arrested because they were simply holding choir practice at his house–these subjects were caught with dope at his house several times.

Thanks to the link to the courts that was posted in another thread, I learned there is a court date tomorrow about this. As I’ve said before, justice hasn’t seen the inside of our courthouse for years. I wonder if the judge will have the intestinal fortitude to allow this lawsuit to go forward or if he’ll find some reason to deny these folks their right to have their day in court, from the plaintiff’s side of the aisle. A year ago, we were all like rabid dogs watching Kimball Mason going down in flames. Are we ready to see if there is anyone else in our community whose behavior on the job needs to be examined?

Melissa,
Where does it say police can’t lie in investigations? Narc units do it all of the time. They can’t lie on the stand but neither can you.

I have witnessed a few run-ins with the IFPD as of late, and I see it as a bunch of BS the way these “role models” and “officials” are handling things. About 2-3 months ago, while at a friends house, a bunch of us were hanging out playing some games when a few people went outside to smoke. They ended up tossing snowballs at each other and ended up hitting a truck driving by. (Not sure if it was actually an accident or purposely done) The woman driving the truck hopped out and began to lecture and yell at these guys, and after apologizing to the lady, she had threatened multiple times to call the “cops.” Since nothing wrong had really been done, nobody was worried about the threats. It was about 3:30am when most everybody was asleep, and a friend of mine was getting ready to go to bed, while walking past the back door upstairs saw a light coming to the door, it turned out to be one of our “hero’s” who didn’t hesitate to come barging in the back door seeing him holding a beer, only to automatically arrest the first person he saw. While resisting arrest for a nothing charge, another friend tried to pull him away from this police officer, they were both sprayed with mase, handcuffed and told to sit outside on the porch. (this was in those 2 weeks it was anywhere from -9 – 5 degrees outside during the day, God knows how cold it was at 3:30) Both cases have been dropped due to illegal entry and no reason to arrest.

A week later, many of us had seen this police officer sitting down the road watching the house, waiting for anything i guess. (cause he didn’t have anything better to do?) At about 1:00am a friend of mine (who lives at the house with his brother) was taking his girlfriend home when he was pulled over by this same officer. He was very rude in asking questions of why he was out, and claimed he had pulled him over for a “loud exhaust.” (I don’t know about you, but I’ve heard some pretty loud trucks in IF before, and never heard of someone pulled over for it. and his definitely isn’t louder than those “fast and the furious” cars) He then confronted my friend with his license that had expired shortly before. My friend denied the cop access to search the vehicle, for he had no reason to search. (he doesn’t do drugs, he hadn’t been drinking ,he was just taking his GF home)After asking if he could search the vehicle another time, and still being told no, he placed my friend under arrest for driving without privileges, put him in the back of the trooper and made his girlfriend stand outside in the snow, in her pajamas while he searched through the entire car, and through her purse while scattering everything in it all over the car. (as if he can’t search in a respectful manner) This trusted, looked up to, officer of the city then asked his girlfriend how far she lived from there, she told him about a mile, and he told her she’d be alright. Hopped in his warm trooper and headed to the BCJ while leaving her to walk a mile in pajamas at 1:30am in the dead of winter.

It just so happened about 2 weeks after that, I dropped off a buddy of mine to his car, as we were both going home. I dropped him off near 1st street and Holmes at around 1:30am. He followed me to 1st and Woodruff (by maverick) where I made it through the light, and he did not. A police officer pulled up behind him,(so he drove the way you do when a cop is behind you)and followed him exactly 1 mile to Meppen.(just off John Adams) When the police officer came to the window, just his luck it was this same officer as the last stories. The officer told him he had pulled him over for having a foggy back window……yeah, in the winter time….took his ID and told him he could smell alcohol. He denied since we had not been drinking previously. He then had him step out of the car and took him to the back, where he told my friend he could see a “Crown Royal” bag through the back window.(the foggy back window) When asked what was in it, he told him nothing, and after denying this cop access to search the vehicle, he gave him that, finger-eye test (because that somehow determines your consumption level?) and began to place him under arrest for Consumption of Alcohol, But refused to give him a Breathalyzer test. He then searched the car and found that in the bag was a baggy with a small piece of marijuana in it (about $5 worth), and 2 empty baggies. He then took him in and charged him with Consumption, Possession, and Paraphernalia. You might be wondering what point i have, but this is the part that is messed up. In the police report the “police officer” writes something close to this (i don’t have the report so i can’t quote it): I saw ______ driving by 1st and Woodruff where he failed to blink within 100 FEET of turning, I then followed him to Meppen where he again failed to blink 100 FEET of turning.(but does not deny that he DID blink) His back window was fogged. When i asked for his ID he told me he was 18. (he’s 20. Why would he claim to be 18?) I could smell alcohol on his breath and placed him under arrest for Consumption of Alcohol. (But not DUI?) I noticed a bag in the back seat, and when asked what it contained, he claimed nothing. I searched the vehicle where i found several bags of marijuana containing around 4.6 grams.(which is about $75 worth)
He never once mentioned that he had not blinked and gave him a ticket for Paraphernalia (which was never found)This cop has lied in several cases and every case i have heard of with him involved lately has been dropped. The attorney has told my friends lawyer that he may not even take the case due to lack of evidence. My uncle is a police officer, and it’s bad cops like these that give them a bad name, but there are way too many of them out there.

Why not post the names of the individuals involved so we can get a police report? Or would that implicate the innocent folks who seem to be up at 3:30 a.m. all the time with beer and marijuana?

I too would be very interested in this case, a foggy back window is not an infraction unless you have no side mirrors, but failing to use turn signals is. Arresting someone for consumption of alcohol (under 21) needs a breath test to back it up and is always given unless refused by the offender. (may occur at police station) Blood Alcohol content may not have been high enough for DUI but any level is good for consumption. The empty baggies can be considered paraphernalia hence the charge. Did I forget anything? Oh yes, everything had to be placed in evidence or attached to the report so again, give us a report number so we can see for ourselves.

P.S. Its only a problem about lying if the officer lies in a report or on the stand. Officers can and do lie in investigations all the time. Its call bluffing. Like a good poker player officers will often oversell their hand, the evidence, to try and get someone to confess. Often it works. Other times it doesn’t. And the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of such conduct, has ruled its okay for the police to do this.

A DUI would require a BAC of at least .02 for juveniles.

JoseCuervo, You think a narc going into a house and buying dope isn’t lying on some level! A police officer saying there is video of a suspect committing a crime to gain a confession. These are things that happen often. It’s not TV its real life.

My stepson mentioned that his buddy’s friends were smoking marijuana one night while he was at the buddy’s house. He didn’t understand why I got upset. He figured that since he wasn’t smoking it himself, there should be no problem.

I immediately googled the phrase “frequenting a place where drugs…” and showed him over 10,000 hits, and went to a few…now he understands that if you hang out with ‘em, you’re at risk for legal trouble, yourself. He went back to his old set of friends (for now, who knows how long that will last, but I hope it does).

Maybe it’s not right that the police target easy pickings such as known users, or underage party goers, etc. But by golly, if you don’t want to be under scrutiny, don’t hang out there!

As far as some of the allegations made here, I have no idea except to say I hope they aren’t true. It’s pretty much a “he said, she said” type of thing, unfortunately. And while this is a pretty easy forum to air your gripes, airing them here does absolutely nothing to end any alleged bad behavior by the police, and serves no purpose that I can see.

Nemesis, you say airing gripes here does no good. I agree, but what do you suggest? No matter how crazy the officer’s story sounds, the judges (who I think consider themselves a sworn member of the prosecution’s team) blow it off. How do we get these few bad apples out of our force? After all, as the taxpayer, aren’t we their employer? Aren’t they sworn to “protect and serve” not just the chosen few, but everyone? Although I would say it would be hard to “protect” a criminal from a dirty cop! Don’t they take the same oath as any witness when taking the stand to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Think about that oath. All of the truth, not just those few points that may get you a conviction, but the whole story. Not that it would make any difference. The judges ignore the details and facts that may provide an acquittal.

Most cops I know would welcome a video camera following them around on duty for the same reason most audio record everything they do. They know that criminals will make false complaints against them to retaliate for being arrested and this is how cops defend themselves from false complaints. The Helburn case is a good example – you can nitpick some of the cops interrogation techniques but beyond that there is really nothing bad about it. But to have heard the Helburn’s rant at first you would have thought they had called them every name in book, threatened to kill them, and tortured their pets. A video camera would just make it that much more plain when the complaint is blatantly false.

Can you give us an example?

Calling me a cop hater doesn’t further your argument. And it couldn’t be further from the truth. I have close family and friendship ties with many officers who I believe to be great individuals. Can you consider the possibility that when an officer commits perjury, or tampers with evidence, or commits some other crime, or just generally treats the citizens of this community like crap, it makes me angry because of the taint it places on my cop friends and family? I have seen my friends treated badly by citizens when in my opinion they didn’t deserve it. Why? Because these half dozen or so bad cops give all the rest a bad name. You appear to be one of those who lives in an “absolute” world. ALL cops are perfect. Cops NEVER do anything wrong. EVERYONE who challenges or questions any cop’s actions is a cop hater. The world is not that black and white. You posted on another thread your admission that cops make mistakes. Was that a mistake? Are you implying that because they’re cops they should be given a pass when they make mistakes? Who gets to decide when they get a pass for one of these mistakes and when they’re held accountable? I don’t think I’ve ever heard you admit that people who make mistakes should be given a pass. Why the double standard? Because cops do a tough job? So do other people. Because cops are people too and are subject to bad days? So are the rest of us. Who gets to decide when a pass for a mistake is given? YOU? The cop? Do we always give passes or never to avoid the double standard or do we open our minds and view each situation on its own merits? There’s a novel idea! When someone gets arrested, are they guilty? That’s contradictory to the constitution – innocent until PROVEN guilty. If they committed a crime in the past, does that make them a “criminal” for life? Do you not believe in redemption, rehabilitation? I’ve never been arrested, but I’d hate to think that if I ever were, that made me a suspect/criminal for life. I’ve got a lot of life left in me and I’d hate to think one bad decision or mistake left me vulnerable to this type of judgment for the rest of my life. If people are not capable of rehabilitation, why aren’t we locking up criminals for the rest of their lives without parole? Do we put them on probation because there is a belief that a person can turn his life around? Not according to you, I guess. I would recommend you petition the legislature to change the sentencing guidelines to support your belief – one strike and you’re out – permanently.

Officer Deede,
Nice response. That’s the kind of attitude I was talking about when I said there are good cops out there. Meth is a demon that someone who hasn’t tried it, or dealt with someone who has, cannot comprehend. Your apparent willingness to help someone overcome this adversity is refreshing and a ray of hope for many of us who feel a few too many cops want to be judge, jury and executioner and who don’t believe, as evidenced by their postings, that once a person has committed a crime, they have forfeited all their rights forever, not just civil rights but human rights, and are rightfully subjected to whatever abuse an officer wants to heap upon them.

I don’t know what these “mugshots” are that you’re talking about. What is this?

Just a question, what do you mean “but {you} have to answer for the past before you can move forward”? I am assuming this woman you’re talking to is someone you believe to be a criminal. Answering for the past is true of everyone, and I am hoping you’re aren’t implying that you get to decide how she answers for her past. That’s a job for the judge, not an officer. I don’t get that attitude from you posting, I’m just commenting in general.

Melissa, if there’s a warrant for your arrest, make arrangements through a lawyer to surrender yourself. I know of at least two cops who read through the warrants list every shift and then go looking for these people just for the thrill of arresting them. There was one instance where the woman a cop arrested under these circumstances ended up in the hospital. A good attorney will be there with you and help. And if Officer Deede is as good as his word, he’ll support you as well. That’s a great presentation for the judge if an officer is supporting you as well as your defense lawyer! I don’t know who you are, but I don’t want you to be hurt, which you will, either at the time of arrest or by not getting bail, if you delay. Best wishes and keep us posted!

Another Guest,

I guess I’m kind of confused by your last comment, “I know of at least two cops who read through the warrants list every shift and then go looking for these people just for the thrill of arresting them. ”

You said it wasn’t Ofc Dedee’s job to be the judge and I agree with that. But isn’t it the police’s job to go an arrest people who have warrants? The other point is what’s wrong with having a, “thrill” in your job. Are police suppose to be miserable in their job?

I would say those two officer who are going and arresting people are actually productive cops. I know I’ve thought when the police stop someone for speeding, “Shouldn’t they have something better to do?” I think arresting people who have warrants would fall under the category of something better to do.

Also I think the officer was referring to Monday Mugshot when certain people’s faces are broadcasted on the news as being wanted criminals. If the officer’s referring her as being on Monday Mugshot then she would have a criminal warrant. My guess is Ofc Dedee was stating to her to turn herself in. Because you have to answer to the police before you can see the judge, if you have a warrant. They are the ones who arrest you to start the process of seeing the judge.

Last thing can you elaborate on the woman who was placed in the hospital after being arrested. Did the cop just beat her? Did the woman try and run? Did she try and fight while being arrested? Did the woman file a lawsuit of excessive force? What was the disposition if she did? There’s a lot of questions from the simple statement the cop went to arrest her and she ended up in the hospital.

That’s a hoot, IMO, that another guest was not aware of officer Deede’s primary task.

I’m curious why Melissa made the vague accusation, but never followed through on telling her side of the story here. Not that I’m looking for it, necessarily, but it was just a hit and run comment she made.

Sounds like the Officer and the Probation Violator have a little bit of a back story.

Whats bad though about cops wanting to arrest people with warrants? Regardless of their motivation they arresting people who are wanted and have broken the law and often been convicted as many warrants are for failing to pay fines or for failing to meet the conditions of their sentence.

If the officers abuse people in the process then thats bad. But if the officers are doing it professionally, even if they do it for the “thrill”, then so what?

Question:

Are patrol officer’s not allowed to serve warrants? That wouldn’t make any sense. If they are serving warrants in whatever down time they have that shows good productive cops.

Observation (Post 111) what do you consider “down time”? Should an officer have down time when he’s paid to work for a full shift “serving and protecting”? Should he spend his entire shift hunting down a few individuals and leaving entire patrol areas uncovered?

Another Guest,

“Down Time” is the same in any other job.

I’m sure the patrol police aren’t busy 24/7. I found out that patrol police take the 911 calls. You can’t tell me they don’t have “down time”. We’re not that big of city.

So reason still stands. If patrol police are serving warrants in their “down time”, I know this may sound weird , but that sounds like “Serving and Protecting.”

Actually we ARE backed up with outstanding warrants. It was on the news about a month ago where they started up a new task force of officers to specifically go out and just serve warrants. Evidently this has recently gotten out of hand and our normal patrol officers couldn’t keep up with them. Did anyone else hear about this and can shed some more light on the subject?

Former chief Livsey cut back on the program from what I understand. Not sure why. Maybe someone can fill that hole in.

I bet the Court Administrator Burt Butler put some pressure on to get the warrant team back in action…..so he could make some money out of the deal! lol

This is interesting information. All of this came from my comment to Melissa that if she was approached by one of the more “enthusiastic” officers rather than the warrant team, she may have more problems than she’d like. BTW, has anyone heard from her?

There’s nothing wrong with a warrant team. There’s nothing wrong with patrol officers serving warrants. I take issue with “down time,” but that’s my issue. I just think our patrol officers, given the size of their territory, might want to think about at least a few of the thousands of people who live inside their patrol areas and yes, drive around and burn up gas and see if all is well on the western front, instead of solely hunting down those who have outstanding warrants. El Diablo appears to be telling us that many of these warrants are for non-violent issues like a failure to pay a fine, not somebody on the 10 most wanted. The issue for me is the motivation behind their seeking out certain people. Are they focusing on somebody they’ve got a hair up their behind about or just everybody on the list in general? Are they trying to serve warrants, even though we have a separate designation for that, because they find patrol boring and they’re looking for a “little” excitement to brighten up the shift? Observation asks what’s wrong with getting a “thrill” out of your job? Wow! Do I really need to answer that? Depends on the thrill. Are they executing warrants so criminals are behind bars plain and simple, or are they looking for an excuse to be able to push somebody around they have a personal issue with? I have no idea as I am not personally acquainted with the personalities of the two officers I mentioned. I am simply posing the question. I also think having a separate designation for warrant service tells us that administratively it is desirable to have officers serving warrants and other officers patrolling. Of course, if an officer encounters someone with a warrant IN THE COURSE of his regularly assigned duties, by all means, execute the warrant. But if you find your regularly assigned duties too boring, should you be given the right to just “assign” yourself to the warrant team and abandon your patrol responsibilities? Who tends to that officer’s responsibilities while he’s off doing something he wasn’t assigned to do?

In the case I mentioned above, the officer was not on duty but had seen a few days earlier that this person’s name was on the warrant list so he took it upon himself off-duty to execute the warrant. It was for a failure to appear. This person couldn’t be booked into the jail as the injuries required medical care. This person was smaller than the officer and no, did not resist arrest. Turned out the notice of hearing had not arrived and the failure to appear was dismissed so the criminal case went away but the injuries didn’t. Yes, I know. Here comes a thousand arguments that it couldn’t possibly have happened that way (ALL our officers are simply too perfect), but it did.

Did the off duty officer actually make the arrest or did the off duty officer just happen to see someone who had a warrant and sicked his on duty buddies on him / her? I saw something like this once a number of years ago. I was eating in McDonalds and the first I knew anything was up was when three cops suddenly show up and arrest two people at a nearby table. It quickly became apparent that another patron, who had been there with who I assume was his family, was a cop as well and from listening to them he’d called the police when he recognized these two people who apparently were wanted.

“You keep trying to prove officers aren’t perfect, well I think we all know that.”

Actually, “we” don’t. Anytime a comment is posted here by me or anyone else about possible police misconduct or mistakes, a landslide of justifications follows as to why officers are perfectly entitled to behave however they want. Your last comment is a perfect example. You suggest that if the officer does something wrong, a lawsuit should be filed. That would be true, except you miss one valid point. The Bill of Rights was written to PREVENT abuses of civil rights, not to compensate someone for the abuse after its happened. Do you have any idea what it costs to fight a civil rights lawsuit? The filing fee alone is $350, let alone the cost of investigation and legal fees. Can you afford that? I can’t. Not all cases are handled on contingency.

So if someone’s Civil Rights were violated I would feel that to be important enough to file a Law Suit, or a formal complaint with the officer’s supervisor and or department at least! Our GREAT country was founded and functions on the Constitution and our Civil Rights! If a person is violating the very foundation of our country and freedoms we all enjoy then I would hope it would be stopped, but it cannot be stopped if it is not addressed properly. Was this done?
Don’t just sit back and be a victim, raise awarness at least, and I do not think this is the only forum. As I said before, the supervisors and departments need to know about problems that are going on or they cannot take action as they are not present at every situation. Letting supervisors know of a complaint should take place in every situation of a person being dissatisfied with the service they were provided, from the police departments to the fast food restaurants to the cashier at a store.

Joe, would you care to post an article asking posters to specify what happened when they filed complaints regarding officer misconduct with the local police or sheriff’s department. I think you would be appalled at the responses.

The recordings are personal notes used to help the officer recall what they witnessed, heard, etc during a particular encounter. A few keep them at home, some keep them at work and I would say most don’t keep them at all.
Police must have the ability to be believed over others when they speak / testify in court, otherwise all tickets etc would be useless. The court’s job is to see thru a person who is telling the truth or one who isn’t. There is always your side of the story, the other person’s side and the truth.

You’re welcome…I guess. My point is the officer is an impartial member of the equation. Your talking about an officer’s word against another’s, as in your family problem. I am talking about an officer trying to find the truth, between two parties, that he/she is asked to do several times a day. An officer will have no interest in the matter and want to find the truth and get the issue resolved. Heaven forbid they spend too much time on something and their beat goes unpatrolled. You will never know the stresses, pressure, and unappreciative nature of police work. You think you do when you offer up some little passive sentence in the middle of your Mary Helburnishly long posts, but it’s obvious from the rest of your posts you don’t mean it.

Nemesis,
Intimidation? Not in the least! I was making fun of the length of the post, Helburnishly made me laugh and still does. I agree with your last paragraph (#139). I’m not saying police don’t make mistakes, they do, they always will.

You’re polarizing the issue too much. You’re making it sound as if I don’t believe in or understand the Constitution. Thru all of the quoted and uncited statements one sentence, probably not yours, stood out to me; “A neutral magistrate issues it.” you were talking about warrants. Wasn’t your earlier argument that the magistrate is biased, in favor of the prosecution?

So is Another Guest really going to give up the details to his/her claims?

Or is this person just going to generalize cops to the one he/she had a bad experience with growing up?

Another Guest,

You sound like a broken record about your generalization to cops. If you’re really trying to make a point here stop beating around the bush! Give us the officer’s name, the person who had the warrants name.

From there atleast we can find out facts rather than theories and conjections.

Also on a side note an officer can use probable cause to search if he has it. You don’t need a warrant if you have probable cause.

AnotherGuest may claim otherwise but its apparent he has an axe to grind with the police. Thus every argument he makes is about how the police and prosecutors will abuse power if given the chance. Its no wonder he’s contradicting himself now that he’s painted himself into a corner. And the complete lack of actual examples is glaring. And don’t believe for a second his lie about evidence never being suppressed because for AnotherGuest to actually know that for a fact he’d have to be able to say he sat in every single hearing there has been over the last few years.

New, you have also misstated the provisions of the Constitution. If an officer has probable cause to search or arrest, he is to go to a magistrate for a warrant. There are “exceptions” to the warrant provisions, such as “plain view” and “exigent circumstances.” That could explain, especially if you’re an officer, why there are so many problems with this issue in Bonneville County, the officer thinks or believes that if he has what he believes is “probable cause,” he can do what he wants after that, instead of understanding that it is the judge who decides if what he has is probable cause for a warrant, unless the situation falls under one of the few exceptions to the warrant provisions of the 4th Amendment. I believe most of our officers believe and understand the difference and that we only have a few who either think they are entitled to be judge and officer, or skew the “evidence” to squeeze their actions into one of the exceptions.

I know nothing of this type of procedure other than what I see on TV. But on TV, they’re all the time waking a judge up in the middle of the night to approve a warrant…so what’s that all about, if the officer can do without it?

Is it just for dramatic effect in the storyline?

Babs,

You are the one who is wrong. The Pre-lim is for finding if there was probable cause for the charges.

You said, “A “preliminary hearing” is simply a hearing to determine whether or not the CHARGES are appropriate.” If they weren’t appropriate the prosecutor would ammend them or not even file them if they weren’t.

“Court”,

you also need to read my post:

‘A “preliminary hearing” is simply a hearing to determine whether or not the CHARGES are appropriate and whether the case should be bound over for trial; it has NOTHING to do with obtaining a search warrant’

Yes, the prosecutor can bring a complaint (i.e., charges) but if a defendant doesn’t waive the prelim, the court decides whether or not the case is “bound over” for trial……….whether or not the prosecutor “ammmends” (ahem) his charges is irrelevant to such a finding.

Preliminary Hearing: a hearing held in the Magistrate’s Division on a felony charge to determine if the defendant should be bound over to the District Court to stand trial. If the magistrate determines that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed the offense, the case is then presented to the District Court.

You can argue those definitions with the Idaho State Judiciary glossary of terms.

Babs,

I think you need to re-read Observations comment. From what I got out of it was the officer didn’t need to go to a judge for a warrant if he had probable cause. Interesting that you took it as the officer had to go to a prelim to get a warrant.

Two Of One:

Thanks for the clarification. Now I see that both Babs and I were correct.

Ooh, started a firestorm there. I get the sense that a lot of belief comes from what is seen on television, not real life. In response to Observation in post 149, “What would an officer do if he had probable cause at 4:00 am and the judge isn’t even up? Just let the guy go because he has to go to a judge before he can arrest or search? I think not.” That depends on what he has probable cause for? There are exceptions to the requirement for a warrant which are specifically outlined. Babs did great – plain view being one of the exceptions. The officer pulls someone over and he sees a joint in the ashtray of the car. No, he doesn’t have to go to the judge for a warrant because it falls under the exception. Exigent circumstances – a cop witnesses a drug buy, the buyer runs into a house. The cop can follow under both the hot pursuit standards and exigent circumstances – to get the criminal before he disappears and get the drugs before they’re destroyed. Go to the courthouse and look at the bulletin board. The on-call judge for the week is routinely posted for just that reason. Yes, if your probable cause doesn’t fall under one of the exceptions, you get the judge up at 4 in the morning. That’s why they get paid the big bucks. Otherwise, some savvy defense attorney is going to file a motion to suppress, which can’t usually be heard in this area until after the defendant is bound over to the district court following the preliminary hearing. There was a case in Blackfoot with the woman who shot her sister. The preliminary hearing was held and the woman was bound over for trial, but not on the 1st or 2nd degree murder charge the prosecutor had filed, but on the reduced charge of manslaughter, I think. This is the best example I could come up with to explain a preliminary hearing function – that a crime has been committed and the defendant most likely committed it. In Blackfoot a person was dead and another person was charged with the crime, but she wasn’t bound over at the level of charges the prosecutor wanted, but rather at the level which fit the evidence presented and available at that time.

Many of the posters seem to think that the allegations about some corruption or problems with law enforcement, judicial misconduct or just plain stupid or irresponsible actions seldom happens. They behave as if these allegations are all a bunch of people watching too many cop shows, having a strange mental illness or some ax to grind with the police. That mindset is actually funny, unless you happen to deal with the folks being ground down by this mess.

This area has:

Judge Moss who thinks sex offenders can be consistently reformed allowing repeat offenders very light sentences. That flies in the face of common sense, statistics and sad experience, as the Post Register reported. Yet still he sails on regardless of the harm his stupidity causes.

QUESTION: What happens to the people these offenders victimize after they get their “riders”? Will they some day turn around and sue the heck out of the county?

A police officer who took a break when he was supposed to be watching over a woman under a death threat who while he was gone got murdered by her stalker

QUESTION: What happened to the officer? Was he disciplined? Or better yet, was he dismissed? What’s to prevent her family from suing law enforcement for negligence?

Another police officer handcuffed his wife during a fight and caused her injury, (he admits this during his divorce proceeding) and later on beat on his son because he mouthed off to him, (police report. He settled by agreeing to anger management courses so he could keep his job working as a sexual assault officer, (he also investigates domestic violence and child abuse allegations (!!!!!). The Sheriff at that time said that “if he were found guilty” he would have to dismiss him, (quote from the newspaper story).

Well, he took a plead and the charges were dismissed WITH prejudice,(something his lawyer gripped about in a letter to the Prosecuting Attorney). That isn’t an acquittal or a clean dismissal. Yet he is still working.

Question: Why do we have an officer who has an anger control problem working with the public at all, let alone in the areas where he seemed to have control issues? If something happens and he snaps on a civilian, other than his family, what kind of lawsuit could come down on his employers?

And then there is Mr. Kent Whittington and his fascinating history with PAs…

Mr. Whittington is not a very respected lawyer in this area. Why do I say that? Because EVERY lawyer I talk to calls him names and says he is a sleaze bag. However, when the good Mr. Whittington was accused of helping his old client Edna Mae Funk produce child porno on his say so with a camera he admitted giving her, the good judges and prosecutors of this town gave him a walk on any charges that he might have gotten.

According to the Post Register, Mr. Kent sat on the witness stand and admitted to having sex with Edna while she was 17 years old, (under age)and that over the 12 year period that he had her as a client he used her to get lewd pictures as a payment for his legal services. He further went on to say that he had done this to other female clients, (three to be exact) and that he had been told NOT to cooperate with the subsequent police investigations by Kimball Mason and John Stoich who were PAs at the time. Judge Shindurling was then PA Shindurling who was on the Prosecution side for this case.

The funny thing is that while Kent admitted to having sex with an underage client, participating in illegal activities and being told to obstruct a police investigation, HE WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH ANYTHING. BTW, the Idaho Bar Association also will not admit that he did anything wrong either.

Question: Why didn’t the PAs charge Kent with statutory rape? How about blackmail? Yet, not a word. Not a whisper of a word.
They even admitted that they “might” have told him not to cooperate. No discipline on them either. Instead Shindurling ends up being a judge.

Oh yeah, Edna Mae went to jail.

Question: Mr. Kent is up to his old tricks again with sexual harassment of someone he wasn’t blackmailing, (see the recent stories in the papers and on the TV about his sexual harassment charges). What if the new victim gets a hold of Funk and the other three ladies for a suit against Kent AND the county for letting this man get off without so much as a scolding?

Now lest you think I am making this stuff up, here’s what you can do:

1) Go to the Jefferson County Courthouse and look up Goody versus Goody. Read the evidence presented in the case. Also look up Detective Brad Goody’s record on his arrest for domestic battery. You can read the “settlement” which was NOT an acquittal.

2) Put in Kent Whittington’s name with the Post Register online site. You can also ask for the archive report on the Edna Mae Funk case too.

3) As for the poor young lady who ended up dead because a police officer took an unscheduled break, I am sure that can be easily pulled up too.

And there are worse cases than this; especially in regards to judges. Anyone who is interested, please drop me a line at pata2@starband.net. I will be happy to discuss this and send you court transcripts, letters, filings, etc.

The point is that there are tons of things that go on in this town that DO get reported and even end up in court, but for the most part, so what? The public grumbles a bit and then it gets covered up unless people like Joe or Adam Steed make enough noise to get someone busted. I applaud their zeal.

Kudos to the police officers like Jeremy Galbreath that are bloodhounds for the underdogs and try to get the bad guys. Hurray for the Judges who make sure the law is applied the right way. But there are other cops, PAs and judges out there who are simply bad. They should be dismissed or recalled. And if they are also dirty, they should be openly disgraced, tossed to the wolves and humiliated so that any other person in their position understands that corruption will not be tolerated by the People.

If that sounds harsh, oh well. And if that offends certain people on this site, well tough cookies! YOU try being someone who has to deal with the victims of police or judicial misconduct or plain old indifference. I love good officers of the law and the courts. But it stops being fun when someone gets hurt. And like it or not, people are getting hurt.

T

PS: FYI: I have one violation in Bonneville County for not carrying car insurance back about 6 years ago. I paid the fine on time. And I got busted about 18 years ago for sitting in at an abortion clinic in Chicago. So, I am not a drug addict, drunk, slut or whatever people call someone who has a record.

Reader is absolutely correct…..this type of thing happens in every town across America. So Idaho Falls is no different. You’ll always have a bad apple or two in every profession, so why would an officer of the law be any different. Sure we hold them to a “higher standard”, but their only human. And no matter how many psychological tests are administered before hiring, some will always fall through the cracks. Should we out them for misconduct and abusing their power?? Absofreakinlutely! But don’t think for a minute that the IFPD of BCSO employees are any more or less corrupt than any other in the country because it’s just not true. But this is where forums like this come in handy. Getting the word out and letting the public know. After all, it’s our taxes that pay these folks each week. They work for us….we the people. And the reason these few “bad apples” tend to get away with things more often is because the public doesn’t stand as one and speak up as often as they should. They’d rather turn a blind eye and go about their business because nobody wants to “get involved” these days.
Like our local judges being so lax on sexual predators. It’s up to US to do something about this. Write our local paper, news stations, congressman, etc. Because if we don’t do anything about it ourselves, it will only continue to happen again and again.

One question I had for “T”….. could you please explain to me how one gets busted for “sitting in an abortion clinic in Chicago”? Last I heard, that wasn’t illegal.

Anonymous,

You are mixing apples and oranges; “probable cause” is the standard required for obtaining a warrant (ie , a judge has to find that the same exists to issue a warrant); you must have probably cause for a warrant to issue; and you must have a warrant to search/arrest, as the “exceptions” to the warrant requirement are very narrow, such as exigent circumstances (ie fear that someone is in danger or that evidence might be destroyed, etc). Only then is a warrantless search or seizure appropriate. Otherwise, you do have to ask the judge or magistrate for a warrant. Warrants are not typically sought at a preliminary hearing; those hearings happen AFTER charges have been filed and an arrest has been made. Gathering evidence, searches, seizures–those all happen during the invesigatory stage and that is why judges/magistrates are often woken up etc. to sign off on a warrant.

This is what “Observation” put in his post:

“If an officer has probable cause to search or arrest, he is to go to a magistrate for a warrant.”

Wrong, he is not required to go to the judge. That’s the point of Preliminary Hearings.

Clearly, Observation was stating, by his second paragraph, above, that one was “not required” to go to a judge or magistrate for a warrant. (Otherwise he would have agreed with the quoted speaker, who was correctly stating the law). As such, Observation’s “observations” about the warrant issue are incorrect. They are NOT sought at preliminary hearings; they are sought much earlier in the process as investigatory tools.

Naw, I loved her post. I was thankful I took a criminal law class from Judge Winmill years ago or I would be in the same boat! Well put babs.

Wow, now that we’re totally off the thread topic maybe we can go back to writing whatever it was about originally…. ha ha!

Well I’m glad someone understood what you wrote! I’ll just chalk it up to me not knowing everything (and that list of stuff I don’t know is growing longer as I grow older) and let it go.

As for what we regular posters look like, I definitely have my guesses, Babs (any serious book reader does this as a matter of course, which is why sometimes the movie version is so poorly received, because the cast does not resemble the vision). As a matter of fact, I have my sneaky suspicions about some people’s identity already (small world and all that).

I have heard that Joe is too shy to participate, but I could see an impromptu public gathering just to qwell the curiosity.

Hi Nemesis,

I didn’t mean to completely ignore your question….sorry about that.

My post was probably way too technical but I was only trying to point out that the term “probable cause” is thrown around a lot, and, indeed, has many “legal meanings”; but the side discussion here was about warrants and what the police need to get a warrant to search a house, for example; and they do need “probable cause” which is more than just a mere suspicion that criminal activity has occured or is occuring. It varies a great deal, depending on the facts, which is why an officer needs to draft an application for a warrant, outlining what he or she believes to be “probable cause” that criminal activity exists. Then he or she brings this warrant to a judge or magistrate who must review it, agree that probably cause exists, and sign it. Only then is the warrant “issued.”

The issuance of warrants can be a very complex legal issue and easy to confuse with other criminal issues, such as the prelim hearing (where a judge gets to decide whether or not sufficient evidence exists to proceed to a trial).

Nemesis, I think it would be a hoot if we all guessed who or what we all are…..

Sorry that last post should be from Observation and not Court. Court is my room mates screen name.

Babs,

Thanks for stating the obvious about needing a judge to sign a warrant to which I never said you didn’t need. However, my point I was making was if an officer had probable cause he didn’t to see a judge to sign a warrant. And I still stand by MY thoughts and not Your conclusions. But lawyer’s do know how to twist things .

In reference to me and my room mate commenting I guess I’ll tell him he’s no longer allowed to post since you went the again Obvious route.

HEY! Where are you cops out there??? Weigh in on this!

1. Do you need to have a warrant for searches/seizures, when all you have is probable cause?

2. Or do you (or someone) have to present your probable cause evidence to a judge, who then signs off on the warrant, giving you permission to perform the search or make the seizure?

Remember, this is when there aren’t exigent circumstances, plain view, a Terry stop, a traffic stop search of a “wingspan”, etc.

Because otherwise, what Babs is saying makes sense to me now.

“when a person gives consent to search”?? DOH! Did it take awhile to figure that one out?
(that one should have went without saying….we’re not idiots here.)

This thread was started with a slew of names that were arrested and then filed suit against the Police Department, naming several officers. I do not remeber if it was this thread or another (there are several alleging misconduct by the police), but does anyone know what happend to the Law Suits? Does anyone know the outcome of the charges that were reportedly “Trumped Up”? I am not sure how to check but I heard that Harry Burke was tried in Federal Court in Pocatello. Anyone know the outcome? How about Tammra Wiscombe? Zack Wall? any of the others?

Any information and follow up would be appreciated and coudl possibly shed some light on the coruption at the local Police Department.

Tamara Wiscombe, plead guilty to Felony Poss. Controlled Substance in Bonneville County/State Court CR-07-14130. Sentencing set for 2/5/09. Looks like all the folks that claimed they were harrassed ran out of tricks from the attorney’s and ended up pleading guilty. Looks like this crew isn’t so innocent after all, despite what Bunitsky and other schisters tried to spin about police corruption.

I’m sure I can speak for most of the people on this site & in this town when I say we’re glad you didn’t either. Those of us that have lived here all or most of our lives know how hard our local law enforcement officers work. We also appreciate the low crime rate in this area, that’s why most of us choose to live here as opposed to the two cesspools you listed.
Maybe you could put your military training to work as a mall cop. I for one would feel safer with you on the job as I walked from Dillards to Macy’s.

Re:post 195

Ever since a little thing called 9/11 airport police everywhere are MANDATED to keep unattended cars moving along in front of airports. So if you got a ticket for violating federal laws by leaving your car there Nate you need to blame the feds not the local airport cop as they are just doing what they are mandated to.

And I have high doubts that Nate was ever a police officer. If he was he’d know that most major drug busts along with a few other kind of important things, wait for it Nate, come from simple little traffic stops where the officer finds something suspicious. Remember a guy named Timothy McVeigh who blew up a building in Oklahoma City, he got stopped and subsequently caught for . . .wait for it Nate wait for it because you’ll love this one. . . . a license plate violation. Up to that point he was the biggest mass murderer in American history and he got busted on a license plate violation. I guess you would have been happier though if he hadn’t been caught because then at least the cop in question might have been doing something you feel was important.

Sorry Nate, but you just got owned!

sure they’re really good at catching speeders, giving kids smoking tickets, stuff like that, but not very good on the more serious stuff……not a clue on that guy that disappeared more than 10 years ago, the spider guy, or amber hoopes, or stephanie E….., or the lady from salt lake who had kidnapped her daughter’s baby…

I agree with Guest3. Start looking more at the positive side of things and all the hard work our law enforcement does instead of the negative.

I find it’s usually the younger crowd that has a problem with the way our officers do their jobs. They haven’t been around long enough to appreciate what they have.

Tigerlily,

About DNA, the cases you mention are big departments in bigger states. Here in Idaho all the police departments are dependent on the few state run labs where its horribly understaffed and underpaid. There have been several news articles over the last few years about how the labs can’t retain employees because they can make 3-4 times as much in the private sector. This has created a huge a backlog to the point that it does take years in some cases. And the more complicated the forensics, and DNA is near the top, the longer it takes.

Real case here in Idaho Falls illustrating this. You might recall the samarui sword guy from last year in Ammon who in a fight chopped off most of another guys hand with a sword. Ruben Diaz was his name and he went to jail for it. Three months after that the lab results finally returned from a two year old attack that occurred at Kate Curley park where a man was stabbed by an unknown assailant. These results showed it was Diaz in that attack too but it took almost two years to get them.

News story about Diaz:
http://www.kpvi.com/global/story.asp?s=7942567&ClientType=Printable

And going back to the staffing, it takes years to get someone fully trained but most employees at the labs are leaving before that point. Who wouldn’t want to leave when you can make so substantially much more with a lighter work load in the private sector?

Its also hideously expensive to the police departments to run many of these tests. They’ll do so in major cases where its though the evidence might be of value but sad as it is they just can’t afford to in the mid range to lesser cases.

Also, in at least one of the cases you mention (Caylee Anthony) you have the feds involved and when the feds get involved things get done quickly because the FBI has its own crime labs with well paid people so things actually get done fast without the backlog.

A good article about the backlog and how our state government is continually failing to fix the problem.

http://idahoptv.org/idreports/showEditorial.cfm?StoryID=32627

The IFPD crime lab cannot do DNA or that type of evidence (that takes specially trained forensic scientists) so they will still be reliant on the state labs. What the IFPD crime lab can do is fingerprints which when relying on the state labs is a 6 -8 month wait. The crime lab will also better ensure that the evidence collected by the IFPD is of sufficient quality to be sent to the state lab for analysis. So while it will help in some areas its not going to do as much as hoped.

The lab is up and running for what it does. For all the hyperbole the media made about it all it really does that is any different than before is fingerprints (which is a big thing in and of itself, don’t get me wrong). Everything else is just more space and better organization. The IFPD had a crime lab before but it was basically a utility closet. Now its a converted utility storeroom with about three times the space. It looks bigger, looks neater, and has room to move but its really not that much more than before (other than fingerprints).

I’d say that its nearly certain the lab will never be able to do DNA. Like I said you have to have forensic scientists (lots and lots of college) who understand all the biology and chemistry to do those kind of tests. Those people don’t come cheap and the IFPD would have the same problem that the state does in they wouldn’t be able to compete with the private sector in wages. There are very few departments nationwide that are big enough to afford to run a lab like what you suggest: NYPD and LAPD could but most cannot. Most agencies rely on state run labs but your bigger states can afford to fund them adequately to keep key personnel.

What really needs to be done is get Governor Otter and the legislature to take the problems in the state labs seriously and double or triple their budget so they can give huge raises to the personnel they have, be able to attract new talented personnel, and double their staff.

All of these posts are great and do a good job of shedding better light on what makes Idaho Falls and the surrounding area so difficult to do detective work in.

Another point of interest is that the number of detectives in the area is very very limited – I don’t know the exact number, but it’s not entirety of the IFPD.

As such, yes, the IFPD appears from this angle to do at least average for what it does…The entire squad is not trained detectives. Heck what they are trained for is fairly limited, given the scope of what they have to deal with (mental health cases, for example).

And there is of course the whole “logistical” side of things…to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone did something to someone else is bloody hard work. Proving that someone was smoking underage or speeding…? Significantly less work.

Bah. I don’t think any of this is coming out the way it sounds in my head…I’m a little out of it on cold and flu meds right now. Here’s hoping it made sense enough to get what little value there is to it…

Why don’t people just say 11 years? What’s with the 132 months?

It’ hasn’t been our govt for quite some time. I always thought this country was based on the -by the people, for the people- philosophy, but that hasn’t rung true for many a decade. The Patriot Act is but one priime example. These days your guilty until proven innocent.
If people realized how often the govt listens in on our cell conversations, very few people would own a cell phone, let alone internet browsing habits.

Alrightythen!

Wow!!

Kim,
Thank you for this wonderful news on Harry Burke.
Sure wish his cohorts – Ron and Tammy would have recieved the same (smile).
These people need to be in prison for the rest of their lives – I don’t believe they are rehabilitatable (did I spell that right? – lol)
Best Wishes!

Another guest is correct. Having worked with those that were mentioned in this article, it was well known that Mason was involved in questionable activity well before it happened. I contacted Linda Milam prior to this breaking and expressed concern. Her comment was that no one ever had complained about Mason and she and the council members believed that he was doing a great job. These are the people that are put into power that choose to look the other way. The reason they look the other way is to benefit themselves during the election.

Hall is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people who fail to obey the law that they are supposed to uphold. I found it funny that his Lawyer said that he doesn’t think that the Bar Association will take action against him. He might be right. The Bar even when it does discipline keeps most of the information under wraps. Why is it okay to learn about everyone misdeeds except the Lawyers. When a lawyer learns about misconduct it is a typical practice to say it was just a misunderstanding, this way they discount the action and then do not have to report it. There needs to be stronger regulations with the Bar.

If the public were to look into the dealings of some of those involved in Public Service such as City Council Members, County Commissioners, Sheriff and others I think that you would be seriously concerned with how they do not obey the laws that they are sworn to uphold.

In the last couple of years there have been numerous charges brought against Sheriffs in the State. Even if the governing authority decides that the Sheriff acted inappropriately and he looses his certification with the State, he can still remain as a Sheriff because he is an elected official. If this was a regular law enforcement officer he would be banned and loose all of his/her certifications.

In the public forum the politicians use the old boy network in helping them conceal their activities. If you don’t tell on me, I won’t tell on you. Isn’t it funny when the interviews started with Mason the floodgates opened up and rather than protecting Mason, these guys/gals were more than willing to watch him fall as long as they were not taken down at the same time. Its too bad that the Attorney Generals Office didn’t bring more charges against some of the lawyers or the officers that were more involved in the case.

Well crap. Local News 8 is reporting that IFPD Sgt Bill Squires was arrested for DUI. He is a very good cop and its sad that he chose to flush his career away like this.

I’m sure the police haters will be typing with glee over this but keep something in mind – he was ARRESTED by other cops. Police officers are human and some will sadly screw up like this. Its how the other officers and departments react that should count and it doesn’t appear there is anything to criticize in this case other than one person’s failing.

He better loose his job over this! This city doesn’t need another drunkard driving around putting our lives in danger when he swore an oath to serve and protect our community. What a looser.

Guest2, Due to your obvious bias and ignorance I choose to leave it. Happy Holidays

Are Moulton or Poulter still on the IFPD today?

Both Moulton and Poulter are still there. If there is a problem when you believe that they have done something illegally or against policy, call and file a complaint. Many say that it doesn’t do any good, but there have been a few cases in which officers involved in misconduct have been disciplined. You also have the option if they are involved in illegal activity to contact the County Prosecutor, State Police or if there is a civil rights violation the FBI has a entire unit set up to investigate those type of crimes. Officers make mistakes just like doctors, judges and everyone else in this world