4:11 PM
So, let's test, and it is okay, awesome. 

So I, I've I've almost concluded my review of the things that we did on this case. 

Um, and I, I know, we're looking at some Outsider reviews that are done to The honest. 

Truth is, we didn't do this perfectly. 

There's really nothing in law enforcement that we do perfectly and and there's several issues That I think born handled well, Or we're handled outside of policy, and so those are all things that I'm looking to address. 

Um, and there's things that need to change as a result, and in fact, some of those we've already put into places as far as department training goes. 

We've done some search and seizures. 

Some case law precedent On. 

We're basically, we've gone over as it relates to search warrants, especially What's our Authority to detain per Case, lock case, president, right beyond. 

That was our authority to detain and handcuffs. 

Well, it's our Authority to be able to detain Um and search, which is a level higher. 

And then, of course, to detain and transport is really. 

It does turn into a de facto arrest. 

There's very limited circumstances where it can remain a detention. 

It is possible, but I don't really know that that or believe that necessarily applied in our instance. 

So There. 

There are things that we need to improve, and we've already started taking those steps to do that. 

Um, in a lot of that will come in the way of training as well, but I, I would love. 

I don't know if you have a list of individual things from these cases That you want to go through. 

And then I'd like to jot them down, And I may not have an answer for you today. 

But I'd like to meet back up, and then I can give you my answers. 

So, that's possible. 

Okay, so let's go through the four incidents. 

Those are the incidents that I'm most familiar with, And so the first one is. 

This is the police report for the stop sign incident where Tyler Shaw was pulled over for The stop sign. 

Have you had a chance to review that footage in the veto. 

Yes, and what did you find So one of the? 

So, there there are some issues, right? 

Um, You know, officer Richardson. 

I understand that he thought he knew what the statute said, but he didn't. 

So, If we're looking specifically at the stop, so I want to talk about reasonable suspicion and then also the stop sign Violation. 

So, Um, There. 

It's hard to justify any type of a stop sign violation there, you know. 

State code says it talks about stopping, you know? 

At a stop line, stop sign. 

It also talks about stopping an appoint near us, the stop sign where you can still see traffic flowing back and forth, Which you could argue you also puts it a little past the stop sign. 

So in this case, I do want to add a correction is in the Utah code. 

It is not say anywhere nearest to the stop sign, but it does say before the intersection. 

Okay, so if there is, There are three places where a stop where someone needs to stop. 

If there is a stop sign Number one, is that a well-marked stop line if there is no well marked stop line, then it is before the crosswalk. 

If there is no crosswalk, then it is before the intersection, and so the stop sign itself doesn't indicate any location of where stop needs to occur, but depending on what type of road it is does, do we agree on that? 

Yes, I'm sorry. 

I don't have the exact language, but what I'm saying is it? 

This stop sign really doesn't matter. 

You're able to stop at a sign or at a place where you can see the intersection and clearly see traffic that's coming forward. 

So, In this case, I know he decided to stop sign violation. 

I do not believe there was a stop by violation. 

Okay, so We've since gone over the statue with him and said, Foster Richardson. 

This is exactly what the statute says, Um, he didn't remember it correctly. 

I do not believe he was intentionally lying or fabricating, but he clearly misremembered, and it was clearly not a stop sign violation. 

I would argue, however, that he did. 

He did at least have reasonable suspicion to make this stop, And he should have based his stop on that reasonable suspicion to begin with and not try to have Drummed up some kind of other offense to occurred. 

What was the reason for suspicion that you believe that he had? 

Well, Again, I, I'm going to write this down because I've got my findings. 

I don't have them in front of me, so I'm not gonna misspeak or be misquoted. 

So, I'm going to write that down as one of your questions. 

What established? 

What I felt was reasonable suspicion for the stop, and then, when we meet again, I'm going to have an answer for you on that. 

I just want to have my stuff in front of me, of course. 

Okay, I, I don't want to pressure you into anything that says me trying to do some sort of gotcha or It's just trying to get answers that are well communicated. 

I don't want you to have to feel like you're forced to answer something, not well communicated that you don't know. 

Absolutely. 

So okay, I've written that down and I will make sure when we meet again. 

I'll have my findings, and we'll address that specifically, and I'll give you my explanation as to why I film that there was reasonable suspicion. 

Okay, okay. 

And then my second question on that particular one was, why wasn't that detainment unlawfully extended does? 

Does that question make sense why, what it would depend on if it was or wasn't. 

But what, why wasn't, or how did that not qualify as an unlawful extended Style. 

Oh, okay, I'm lawful extended detainment. 

Okay, so what you, what you're saying is, you believe it was an unlawful extension of a detention, and why? 

What? 

Why would it have been considered lawful? 

Is that okay, and again, I can? 

I can get you more on that. 

That's, that's completely fine. 

I'll get you my findings, and we'll go through that detail. 

That's totally fine. 

Okay. 

That is the first one handled. 

Second, one is the dog search and the missionary. 

Okay, are you familiar with what that would be? 

Yeah, I'm familiar with the case. 

One question I have on. 

That is what. 

What does furry tell mean A furry tail I? 

I heard the tri. 

I don't know what that means. 

So, in the body cam, you can hear officer Hawkins use the term furry tail. 

Okay, and I, we don't know what that lingo means, and so I'm just curious what it means. 

Okay, I can find out for you on exactly what you meant. 

That's no problem. 

What you meant by that, Okay? 

The next question on that would be. 

Where did the term? 

This is American Fork. 

We do differently. 

We do things differently. 

Here come from. 

Yeah, have you watched? 

Hey, so there's what we have a ton of body camera. 

I don't expect anyone to watch. 

I've seen just about all of it. 

Okay, but you watched you watched specifically that then, and what officer Hawkins was trying to explain to this individual. 

Did you watch that body cam like our body account? 

Okay, so in it, and again, I'll get you more of an exact answer. 

But, Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna bring in my findings because I don't want to speak or mist quote, but I do feel like that's something that was taken out of context. 

Adaptive applied to a million different things, but the honest truth is, let's talk about this native California for just a sec. 

Okay, um, I think it's probably the general public would likely agree with. 

The fact that we are We in Utah probably enforce more laws and have a greater level of enforcement compared to some states, such as California, there may be some things they don't prosecute down there. 

There may be some things that they don't, they don't handle, or that's they're so busy. 

That's that's not a big deal if I come in and say here in Utah, though we do take that seriously. 

We will prosecute this, or we will make a stop for this, or we'll do X, Y, and Z. 

We do things differently here. 

I, I personally don't see the the issue there. 

Um, now if if officer Hawkins is, like, Yeah, you know, everyone else follows the Constitution, and they respect constitutional rights, but we do things differently here. 

That's an issue, right? 

So I think the context in that is is important. 

And again, I will get you, my findings there, and and kind of an actual transcription of what was said. 

But We've made some. 

We've made some mistakes. 

I've already opened the admitted that, and I'll admit that, But that one I truly feel was taken out of context and was unfair. 

This phrase was used twice. 

It was used once Benjamin Schneider and it was used once to Christopher or Kristen Christian Christian and the phrase used for Christian this. 

This is Utah County. 

We do things differently here. 

Okay, And I would tell you that part of that is even true compared to Salt Lake County. 

We have two very different County attorneys. 

Salt Lakes is referred to a district attorney. 

We have very different Philosophies when it comes to the enforcement of some offenses and how those get prosecuted. 

So, again, What's the context that's being used in, and I will get an actual transcription of that fact, Amir, right down just context on that statement, Because that's important again. 

If, if Were referring to something, we tried to do well, and we're saying we do things differently here. 

That's very different than If I say, will we? 

Actually, You can bribe us. 

You can pay us 20 and we'll let you off. 

We do things differently here. 

That's very different. 

So I, I do. 

I am a little frustrated, and then I feel like this specific thing Has been generally unfair to us and taken out of context so, but I will get you a woke over the transcription of that, and we'll go through that. 

So, I've got that written down The next one would be his statement that he made is, I'm just going. 

My plan was just to scare them a little bit and let them go. 

Also from officer Hawkins. 

Okay, Okay. 

I will. 

That's what I'm going to wait to go over with you until we meet again. 

4:21 PM
So, we will go over that. 

So, does that work? 

Okay, all right. 

Like, I said, I'm not trying to press you or I do want answers, and sometimes the answer isn't going to be something that I look like it's. 

It is what it is. 

Maybe I'll speak a little bit to that right now. 

We, we have. 

I'm in a dave into this morning, so I'm speaking generally, not necessarily specific to this. 

Okay, we as officers have we have a wide array of discretion? 

Um, which is good if used lawfully right and and with good faith in good faith. 

If, if So, let's say I get called out to a call for a criminal violation. 

In my opinion of the different things that could happen, probably the the least favorable thing to that individual to a spec will call them is for him to be charged. 

Okay, Um, If if I can go out and the verbiage is not great, but if I can go out and This isn't an ongoing problem. 

I really don't want to cite this individual because I think that I can handle it differently. 

I, I think it's reasonable at times for us to say, I'm I'm going to help him understand the severity of this a little bit and make sure he knows that if he does this again, that this is what's going to happen, but then I will let him off. 

The verbiage is not great. 

As far as scaring him a little, but There are times we will do that where we'll go out and we'll help somebody understand the gravity of the situation and make it appear very serious to them or is serious as it is. 

And then we will use our discretion and cut them loose In in our image. 

In our view, A lot of times that's extending some form of mercy or some form of leniency or Grace. 

By not citing we could sight we. 

We could try and jump something up as far as the charge goes, but we're just telling you this is super serious. 

These are the things that could happen. 

We're not saying they will happen, but they could happen. 

Don't do it again. 

And, and so I will say that generally. 

But then, when we meet again, I will go over this incident specifically That that makes sense. 

And then also the articulate suspicion for pulling them over on that incident as well. 

Okay, Let's just give them little in there. 

I know. 

The reason was is because and there's no video evidence of this, but they claim they saw Christian attempting to enter their vehicle, But I don't know. 

I don't believe Christian was doing anything unlawful. 

Christian was attempting to enter his vehicle. 

Sorry, um Benjamin Schneider's, according to the police report, okay, and that was what caused the stop, but I don't believe Christian was doing anything illegal. 

And then the question is, is what was the cause for Benjamin Schneider? 

Then at that point. 

Okay, Very awesome. 

Okay, sounds great. 

I've got that, really. 

Okay, Then the continued attainment for a dark sniff. 

Okay, So again, I'm gonna I'm gonna bring you findings. 

We, So we can do an opener sniff on any vehicle, obviously, as long as we're not Unlawfully extending the scope of the stop, right, or the not the scope, but the the time? 

Well, okay, All right, you're going to get me on semantics here. 

No, no, I'm not trying to okay, so I can't prolong to stop just for a canine step unless I have something more okay. 

Um, I know that they also did field sobriety tests, And so I will look at times. 

My understanding was that that canine stiff was done, Um, at the same time they were doing field sobriety tests, which then if the dog, The actual deployment of the dog prior to indication, had been done at the same time and in less time than the filter writing tests had been going on, and that would not have prolonged the the time of the stop. 

So, I will get you actual times on that. 

But, But you're, you're right, sort of having something additional. 

There's a lot of things right, sort of having something additional. 

We can't extend the time of a stop Beyond what we would normally spend just to be able to deploy a dock. 

Okay, Um, But the understanding also has to be present that if it wasn't prolonged. 

If there were other things that were prolonging, I decide from this sniff, then that would have been awful. 

And regarding that. 

I do have a request for the department. 

And there might be another section that has it, but currently this is the section for the narcot for the canine narcotics. 

I would like there to be something in there that a stop is not able to be extended beyond unless there's probable cause or reasonable to article suspicion That stop cannot be extended for a canine sniff, which is lawful. 

And that is what the laws, but it's just not in the policy. 

Okay, so we Okay, I'm not saying we can't do that, so I will look into that. 

We clearly don't have every single piece, of course, precedent in department policy that would take our manual from 600 pages to who knows how many, but Um, I'm not saying that I'm opposed to that. 

Okay, so I'm going to write that down with the reports that I've received. 

That has been a concern with several citizens Okay, and again, I get that. 

But what I would look for, for from you, is specific cases. 

Okay, the the concerns that citizens have. 

I'm not discounting them. 

It's okay, bring me something I can't do anything about it. 

So, of the people who are talking about that. 

If they can bring you actual case numbers that I can look at, that would be incredibly helpful. 

Okay, so I've actually asked them to do so. 

Okay, I don't know if they have or haven't, and some of them were quite a while ago, so it's just okay gotcha his word versus her word, but okay. 

Okay, Another incident on that one is we have officer Hawkins stating I didn't see anything with Tyler. 

I think something along the lines I didn't see anything with Tyler. 

I believe he's good to drive, and that was before. 

Um, Before the test before the detention before everything, okay? 

So, so then the question makes to be why? 

Why didn't what was the probable cause? 

What was the article suspicion to do that? 

They said that they smelled alcohol on the other gentleman, which wouldn't give our and it wouldn't give articulous suspicion to Nexus that's not in Nexus. 

It's got to be individualized just because someone else has the owner of an alcoholic beverage on their breath Doesn't doesn't justify it. 

It's got to be individualized, so your arrive, so okay. 

I've got that written down, okay? 

That one's settled. 

The next incident was with the process server. 

Are you familiar with that? 

I am So. 

What's actually go straight to the code In the Utah State Code? 

There is an exception for the stalking. 

The exceptions are stated under six, but under 6B is the one that I believe would be most particular to this situation. 

Okay, So you're you're familiar with the stock encode as well? 

I'm assuming, right? 

So, it's it's we talk about a course of conduct, which is two or more events, right? 

So, Um, I understand this. 

Absolutely! 

If I have a course of conduct, that's already Five events. 

Um, and and now we have four because of a process server. 

We still have more than enough events to justify a course of conduct. 

What would be the events that you would have at that situation at that point. 

So, there there, in my opinion, there are several, but this is a good question. 

I'm going to write this down, And then I'm going to bring those to you when we made again. 

Then we can go through those. 

Okay, So what constituted the course of conduct, Because at that point we only have those two incidents Well, And again, if you read our police reports on this one are just looked at our body count. 

I have both. 

Okay, all right, We will go over that. 

That's no problem at all. 

So okay, I believe the police reports may be Exciting. 

Um, Yeah, I think they're citing, um, Sandy police department, which would be a different individual, so those cases would not stack with this one, if that makes sense correct. 

They get an individualized to a victim, So even if there had been a course of conduct up in Sandy that those events don't apply here unless again. 

There's some Nexus between victims or or something. 

So, I agree with you. 

So Okay, The next incident was with the picketing called the tarte residential targeted picketing. 

Okay, So the definition that I have the code here is. 

Picketing means the stationing or posting of one or more individuals to prize the public vocally, or by standing or marching with signs, Banner sound amplification devices, or other means of an opinion or a message. 

How does posting the single sign fit this definition? 

Okay. 

All right, I've got that down as well. 

Okay, And in my honest opinion, this this charge in particular Falls flat on its face and should be dismissed, but that's okay outside of my control. 

Are there any other concerns that you have with the American with this incident? 

Assert the The serving incident. 

There are a couple. 

Yeah, And again, I'll go through those with human array. 

I'm writing all these down, so I'm just going to say what other concerns And I will bring those in When we need again and talk to you about at least maybe some of my other concerns that I have. 

I mean, I think it's pretty apparent that we need to make sure we're doing some additional training as well. 

When it comes to process serving Um civil paperwork, the process there, that's something the department needs to take care of, because even between officers, there's some confusion on what can be done. 

What? 

What can't be done? 

What needs to be done? 

What should be done? 

Um, so that's just one of a of a couple that I have. 

And then one question that keeps coming. 

To my mind, is I, I have a hard time thinking of anything that is more professional or business oriented than serving papers Like to me, just hearing that, and that someone being arrested in the process of that raises concerns. 

If the papers were then served, Like the police officer said they were, they might do, and they serve those papers and then told Ben to leave, and then he then refused to leave because he wanted videotape evidence that would dismiss a lot of the concerns that residents have. 

Okay, I understand what you're saying. 

Okay, cool. 

4:33 PM
The next incident is the GoFundMe incident Okay, And we're talking. 

This is the we're talking, the four. 

This is the fourth case that we're on, right? 

This is the third Stop. 

Yes, fourth, you're right, there's five incidents. 

Yeah, I think we only have four, the GoFundMe, and the raid are joint in the police report by separate in my mind. 

Okay, gotcha. 

Okay, all right. 

So, the GoFundMe incident involved the rest of of, um, Sheldon, no cross, Um. 

In the police report. 

My apologies. 

I was thinking that we're gonna be. 

We have officer Adamson stating this in the police report. 

Okay, why would that be a concern? 

A, as far as which part media just a tiny bit Officer, Adamson stated, I was concerned he was attempting to lock or so his phone, while it was in his pocket. 

Okay, I'm sorry, can I, of course, it's a? 

That's the major part, but read a little bit before that. 

I just want to get the exact saw. 

Okay, So that that's not. 

That is an issue. 

And again, we'll talk about this when I, when I get financed for you, but destroying evidence is different than a locked phone, right? 

Um, That's it's different. 

So, if we're destroying evidence, Um, that's that's very different than someone locking his phone. 

So, Um, If Is, I've heard Is, I've heard Lieutenant Adams it's explanation. 

It differs from what's in misery report, but what's written in his report Would not be a justification for seizing the phone. 

I completely can conceive how that that's an issue, So and then after the phone was season, we talked about this a little bit with the meeting with the mayor. 

He then manipulated the device, so it would not lock After knowing it was the wishes of the person he sees the phone with and then tension to lock it. 

And maybe there's some sort of case precedent, I would disagree with it. 

But I mean, if there's case precedent, there's case precedent, Okay? 

Okay, gotcha. 

All right, I've got that right now. 

Okay. 

Are there other concerns you have with the With the GoFundMe incident, and then we'll move on to the raid? 

Um, there's a few other concerns I have, but again, we'll go over those. 

Um, when we meet back up, so I'm going to write that down as well. 

Okay, Only the search warnable. 

So? 

One of the body camera Videos that has not been released that I believe would be a public concern has been the video evidence of officer Adam Adamson going to the Airbnb and doing his investigation. 

Okay, So we we haven't held any video back, Um there. 

There are some redacted. 

Are you talking about redacted footage, So this footage is not released at all? 

There is no footage of atoms and going available to the public of Addison. 

Going to the Airbnb And conversating and investigating with the owner. 

Okay, which means in a not saying that this is right, but which means there is not there is not video of it. 

Any? 

Every video we've had from this instinct has been released with redactions, so if something hasn't been released, then it means just does not exist. 

Just do not have a video of him conversing with the Airbnb homeowner. 

And that is against policy. 

Because that raises even more concerns because that's the one star policy. 

Because we're supposed to record everything with a very limited List of restrictions, And those are if the person requesting it and it can be found here if the person requests. 

If the person that we're videoing requests it, and then They have evidence that we would not, that would be important that we wouldn't be able to get while we were recording When the investigation is over Or when Consulting with an officer. 

And with that last one in particular. 

What does Consulting mean to our department I, I? 

Why would consider as a chief? 

I would consider Consulting to be Any instance where I'm talking about the case and what I've got, what actions I'm going to take. 

That's what I consider to be a consultation is specific to the case And in anything as far as trying to figure out what do we have and how are we going to move forward So? 

And that's the case of that is our definition of a Consulting. 

Then there are additional concerns of when body cams were muted, like when Hawkins pulled over Ben. 

He muted his body camera when there was none of those incidences happening and then forgot to record it again Later on. 

And there are other incidents similar to that where body cam was muted when one when officer and this isn't as big of a deal. 

But when an officer is moving from one location to the other, what is the purpose of that muting, and in my opinion, And I would update the code to say that whenever an officer mutes their body cam, they would need to State the reason why I'm pretty sure that that's already. 

It's not. 

Okay, Okay, that is in the Salt Lake Code for Salt Lake City, But it is not in our code or in our policies. 

So a member should document any instance where he or she should have activated his or her body more camera. 

And when it says activated, I also believe that means to be reactivating, But fails to do so. 

And then the reason for the failure. 

That's a that's an actual not a department policy, but that's a state code. 

Is that what you're talking about more or less okay as whenever the body can? 

I mean, as have you seen the the video of the auram officer, I have not seen that one. 

So, when the aurum officer went to the bathroom, he said. 

I'm muting my body camera because I'm going to use the bathroom. 

He then turned off the and that it, of course, narrating to his body count, the reason why, and then. 

He then turns off his body camera, uses the bathroom, and comes back out and turns it back on, and so it would be something like I am muting my body camera because I want to consult with, um officer Paul Regarding this, and then muted, right. 

I? 

I still don't like muting even in that case. 

In my opinion, if the reduction needs to happen, it should happen on The Cutting Room for where it can be re-obtained if necessary. 

But when an officer mutes their body camera, it's it's gone forever. 

Yeah, and we had multiple instances. 

We're officers, in addition, also failed to reactivate them once they had been muted, and, and then it just makes it look bad, too, because then you have some officers who didn't mute. 

But some who did, and it creates issues. 

There are some issues there. 

Absolutely Okay. 

Um, I will. 

I will find out exactly what that conversation or that interaction with the Airbnb homeowner entailed and why there's not a recording of them. 

Okay, okay. 

Another thing is, I assume that officer Adamson was At the Airbnb since he arrived to since the raid started with that assumption. 

Be correct. 

I don't know, So you're asking, and I guess maybe I should make sure I'm understanding You're. 

You're wondering if he was at the Airbnb the entire time, basically from the contact with the homeowner, to the time the war was correct. 

Okay, I don't know, but I can find out. 

In policy 608. 

In this highlighted portion. 

When doing these raids, a plan is started, And any officer who's not there for that plan without approval from the supervisor Is not supposed to take place. 

There's not supposed to participate in that raid. 

Okay, I am happy to look into this. 

Again, I think a question would be, what is that? 

What is Definition of an operation? 

Um, you know this. 

This really applies a lot to our SWAT deployments And forcible entry warrants. 

No knock warrants and things like that. 

So I, I don't know that this would necessarily apply to every single, like, search warrant. 

We do quite a few search warrants, so I'll look into what the definition of this is. 

Was there an operation briefing for this incident? 

Um, Again, it? 

What's what's a briefing? 

Um, So I, I will look into this, and I will get you an answer on that. 

So okay? 

So The search weren't was issued for Lagos. 

The department was well aware that Ben's purpose for being in Utah was to investigate stolen Legos In the search warrant itself. 

The affidavit that was submitted The judge. 

There was no Evidence provided that there were stolen Legos from Utah That Ben had stolen Legos and Any discussion of stolen Legos would be easily dismissed by any officers knowledge of the case. 

So, I will say that the search warrant affidavit presents one of the Biggest places where we screwed up. 

This. 

This was an affidavit, And they've got some. 

I've got some information share with you right now, but This is an affidavit essentially not. 

And and I'm talking about what it should be, not, what's here? 

Because what's here is different. 

What this affidavit was meant to be was an affidavit to search for a person pursuant to an arrest. 

This didn't really have anything to do with Legos. 

We weren't going in to look for Legos. 

We didn't even search the residents for Legos. 

Um, what happened? 

Here is a new officer wrote this affidavit. 

We have A clear directive and policy that search warrant. 

Affidavits have to be reviewed by a supervisor in our department, and in this case, Due to a myriad of whatever you know, the officers want to say that one was busy here. 

One was busy there. 

This did not get reviewed by a supervisor. 

It looks like you're going to show me something slowly. 

It's more than just a supervisor as well. 

Let me, I believe it, and Keep talking. 

While I find this because you were making some valid points, Basically what I'm getting at is we failed Here. 

Um. 

So, in my opinion, we we should have never even put Legos in this affidavit. 

Um, what we're looking for is an individual named Benjamin Paul Schneider. 

That is, the person that we are looking for. 

Here's the probable cause as to why we feel like we've got enough for an arrest. 

And here's a probable cause as to why we feel like he's inside of the residence at this time. 

I know that they heard the homeowner mentioned something about Legos, but in my opinion that never should have made it into this affidavit, because what, what? 

4:47 PM
It makes it look like to the public. 

Is that we executed a shoddy Search warrant for Lagos In, and although that's what it portrays, That's not what we were trying to do, which means that we failed here. 

So, the affidavit is that there's several issues surrounding how that was completed submitted. 

Um, there's problems. 

So, under this section that I have marked and highlighted, it says that search warrants app search warrants, affidavits, And a restaurant to the chief of police and designee, so that you in this it has that use that. 

You have a designated for these things, but this search warrant was also supposed to be submitted to you as well. 

Yes, according to our code to my understanding. 

So this, I wouldn't qualify this to be something similar to a major SWAT operation where we're doing deconfliction. 

We're doing risk assessments and whatnot. 

So, in an instance where just to give you an idea, let's see that We have A bunch of individuals inside of residents that are dealing firearms. 

And there's also a drug component. 

What we will do is at that point we'll do a risk assessment, we'll do deconfliction, and depending on what that risk assessment says that makes it to me as well as in the affidavits in anything else to happens. 

And then we have a discussion as to How are we going to serve this warrant? 

What's our approach going to be? 

How are we going to do briefing? 

What kind of do you confliction? 

Are we going to do? 

What are the resources and it's? 

It's more, right? 

I, we don't require on a a small, You know, search warrant, whether that's a vehicle or something like this, where there's a not going to announce Residential, Um, that doesn't meet the threshold for a major operation like this, and perhaps a policy needs to be short up. 

But I've seen, I've seen risk assessments with fewer officers with three officers, and in these cases, I found that it was Justified, but that had risk assessments attached that had these things. 

And also, there's evidence in the body cam that there was some sort of risk assessment and list of individuals they expected to be at the Airbnb, which is part of that planning of the the deconfiguration Of the section 60 policy 608, But what a lot of what you're stating would fall under these other operations, but they would still follow Those same procedures. 

Then we need to update this Because the the honest truth is, I do not review every search or affidavit that we have. 

That's that's not operationally feasible, and it might be my misunderstanding. 

But my read through and study of it is what I found. 

Okay, so please re-review that and see. 

What if you agree with it or if it needs to be rephrased? 

Okay, Absolutely. 

So, another incident in the search incident is they did not knock on the door when they arrived, and they didn't knock and announce warrant. 

So, yes, you're right, but there's no, You know, even if the doors propped open you, you still announce, right? 

I mean, You clearly can see people inside. 

They know you're there. 

Stop and Please. 

We have a search warrant And then whatever, right? 

Just because the doors open Does not allow you on a knocking announce warrant to just enter the premises. 

Like, there's no debating that. 

So, yes, that's an issue of identified as well. 

Okay, Another issue is when they entered the Airbnb. 

They turned over a camera. 

Okay, That wasn't aware of that one. 

I didn't. 

It was a GoPro that was sitting on a desk, okay, and it was turned over once they entered. 

Okay, did? 

Can you see, like, on purpose, likely grabbed it and turned it over? 

You can see it on Ben's video of it. 

Okay, So I don't know if it's, I'm sure, if you find the exact officer and body cam, you can see it happening. 

I don't know if you have a good shot of that in the body cam, But it is you get a great shot of it on Ben's on Ben's GoPro. 

Okay, I'll take a look at that. 

So okay, I'll follow up on that too. 

Okay When attempting to record any had his phone officer, Adamson grabbed Ben's arm and twisted it, Um, In these. 

They're supposed to be, would that can? 

Would that be considered a use of force? 

Yeah, so useful forces anytime that someone doesn't submit to handcuffing. 

And so If if we tell people you know, turn around, put your hands behind your back, or even at the same time. 

If I'm, you know, touching someone's arm and bringing that back if they're allowing themselves to be cuffed, then then? 

No, but the minute that it's not. 

And again, we've got definitions in our force policy, but essentially the minute that it's not something that they're doing on their own accord. 

It generally is a use force. 

So, in when these warrants are being upheld, it's part of the police policy to Any use of force needs to be submitted, and there was no submittal. 

In fact, in the report, Some officer Richardson, which is where you would probably See this. 

You see him State. 

This took place without incident. 

Okay. 

So again, I, I will answer to this. 

But This is a very subjective, of course. 

What is incident, You know if I have, And I'm going to be honest with you if I go out to Walmart and there's a theft? 

And Even if I go up, It's So. 

I'm going to give you an example when you're ready. 

I'm very much listening. 

Okay, So I'll wait, I'll wait as well. 

So, you're done, so I have your own divinity. 

Okay, so let's say I'm at Walmart. 

I've got complete PC to rest somebody for theft. 

I go up to A woman, and I say, hey, You've got felonies. 

This is a felony you've got prior to take me to jail. 

Put your hands behind your back, and she says, well, hold on just a sec, and I have to grab her arm and bring it back behind her, even if I would probably do a use of force on that. 

If she's pulling away and doing things, even though I'm doing a use of force on that, I still generally would see that. 

As being, we took her in a custody without incident, meaning there's no injury. 

There's no Shootings. 

There's no, I didn't use any of my lesson legal devices so that that's a very subjective term. 

To hang someone Pat on, Um, but the policy in and of itself is is not subjective. 

It's pretty. 

It's pretty objective, Because when it comes to, I think it's In the word service In either policy 608 or 609, if any use of force is used. 

It is supposed to be reported. 

Yeah. 

Anytime, we have a use of force we're supposed to do a user Force report, then actually goes to use of force and pursue region board in our PeaceTime Was there. 

Was there a report, and uh Review of that? 

I'll find out we call that a fax report, so let me see if that was done. 

Um, You know, I'm gonna be again, very honest and transparent with you that I, this is very On the fence on whether this would qualify for a force incident or not. 

Um, After the fact, well, we didn't. 

So, I'm going to talk about his shoulder for just a sec. 

How do you complained a shoulder pain then, or even the next day, and he'd been like, hey, just so, you guys know you dislocated my shoulder. 

That's enough for us to say, look regardless. 

We're gonna do a force incident report. 

We're going to have our board review this because of what's being the lead straight. 

We didn't hear about the shoulder incident until he released his video In, and it's it's also frustrating because he's straight up Wide about his shoulder being dislocated from us. 

Um, And that that's frustrating when you put an x-ray up of a dislocated shoulder. 

That's not your x-ray. 

And that's also not of the correct shoulder. 

That's an intentional attempt to mislead and fabricate fax as to what actually happened. 

And that's frustrating, right? 

If we're going to call a speed of speed, let's do it. 

Whether it's good or bad on our end, whether it's good or bad on your end, but that was a complete life. 

So, not knowing what his allegation would be as far as doing something with his shoulder just in what Quinn Adamson, sorry, Colin Quinn. 

That's fine. 

It did in that body camel loan. 

That's all that's on the fence on whether I would consider that to be a force incident or not. 

So, So yes, had we determined that met the threshold of a force incident? 

Absolutely use the force report should have been done. 

And then it's reviewed by a board here. 

The police department, Um, if it wasn't considered to be a force incident, it's documented in the police report. 

And there's not actually a fax report that's completed. 

So in this incident, you then see him grab the phone. 

And then I believe it was recording. 

And then he stopped the recording, Which is an issue with the First Amendment. 

So you're saying he? 

He grabbed, um, the phone that Schneider had. 

And then he, he ended the recording, I believe. 

So, I would have to re-watch the body cam because I'm a little foggy on the exact details. 

But that's what I remember, Okay, Agreed. 

They did. 

That happened. 

I agree with you, for sure. 

Okay, I'll find out as well. 

So Okay, Then, for officer safety, all of the The individual's present we're put into, um, handcuffs, set aside, and the warrant was issued. 

I don't see an issue with that just because that's pretty much standard for any warrant, But the issue is what took place after that, All the individuals, while still handcuffed, were transported to vehicles. 

Yeah, so, So I'm going to jump back. 

You say, you may not have an issue with that, But I still think that's a consideration. 

We, you know, Supreme Court has essentially given us Categorical authority to detain on scene, Um, although the bar is not high to meet it. 

We, we don't have a categorical authority to just put it if everyone in hand because of the scene of a search warrant. 

And so I I get. 

Maybe you don't have Issues with that, but That is a consideration that's not an automatic thing. 

We get to do. 

Okay, I didn't know that, yeah, there's got to be. 

It doesn't have to be a lot, right? 

It's it's. 

There's the bar is not high, but there's got to be something there. 

4:58 PM
You know if I go in again, be an example. 

I go in it. 

Serve a search warrant. 

I'm on a residents for a forged writing, so someone's been forging checks, and I come across, Um, 90 year old female that's inside of the house that really poses no threat. 

She's not a part of the warrant. 

I, I mean, we should not be hand cuffing her, right? 

There's got to be more than just the warrant On that categorical authority does not exist. 

So, So I understand you may not have issues without That's still consideration on our end, and something we're doing training on to make sure our guys know that's not a card blanche thing. 

I agree with you then, and that detention Mixed with transport. 

I mean It in almost not all cases, but in almost every case, Um, that is going to turn into an arrest. 

There's, there's a few exceptions, but they're they're very limited. 

And, and they're tied to the operations of The operational needs and in a bunch of other things, but basically in almost every case, If if we're away from the scene and I arrest, sorry, I detain and transport back. 

That's going to turn into an arrest if I'm on C90 and transport someone somewhere else, it's likely going to turn into an arrest. 

So again, What these officers would have needed to have, I mean, just speaking, frankly, is individualized, probable cause for all five individuals that they were involved in this, Um, Some of them seem to think that They had it on some. 

This is something we're still flushing out. 

I have concerns And and that's why We need to slow down, and we've got time on scene to figure some stuff out. 

While we've got any attention affected right, and at that point we can build a probable cause if we need to if it exists. 

But um, There's issues there. 

And at that point. 

Even if you believe you need to, You need to identify everyone. 

It's, that's another issue is, why didn't they identify everyone because they arrested a minor who And that creates additional issues? 

Their detention would have been okay up into the point. 

They realize This individual is a minor, right? 

It's short of anything else At that point in time. 

It's okay, we verified minor handcuffs off. 

We're calling parents, and then we'll figure things out from there. 

Issue big issue. 

Okay, so just to hammer home deployment policy 609 dealing with warrant Services. 

Our policy states that anyone who is detained who there is not probable, No further Reasonable Suspicion or safety. 

Concerns exist to justify further detainment. 

The person should be a promptly released, and so I do want to iterate. 

That is our policy. 

The minor. 

In this incident, he requested that his car be locked and stated that was unlocked. 

And then the officers said, essentially, I believe it was Officer Richardson. 

And he said, that's going to be a problem for you to deal with tomorrow. 

Okay, is that a policy? 

Is that something that should have happened? 

No, I don't, well, okay, Should have versus Because I see that opening up the city to liability, because if someone broke into that car, who would be liable? 

Would it be him who tried to, but was unable to lock his car, or would it be the police department for refusing that request. 

Does that? 

Does my concern make sense for sure? 

And I don't think there's it. 

So, I'm going to break it down to what we, We, we should have such, could have done in what I would have liked to have seen done. 

Um, I don't feel like we have any Legal obligation to go and lock a car if we were the reason it became unlocked. 

So if the car was locked and then, for whatever reason, we unlocked it. 

Let's see! 

We had a search warrant on the car that was about At that point. 

Yeah, we. 

We interfered with the original state, and we should have put it back to the way that it was, Whereas we didn't have anything to do with his car. 

I don't think we have any legal, Um, Requirements to do that. 

However, Again, what I would have liked to have seen how hard is it for me to be? 

Like, yeah, dude, I got you, man, it's no problem. 

I'll go take care of it for you. 

How hard is that? 

How hard is it just to be a decent human being, right? 

So, no, I don't feel like it opens anything up to us because it was in its original state, and we didn't interfere with that, But I don't agree with that. 

It's like duty will take you 20 seconds, maybe 15 seconds, to just be a good human being you're supposed to be providing service. 

Just go lock them, freaking cars like, and maybe there was something I don't know that the officer did. 

Maybe he was worried that there was some accusation that was going to come up with handling property that he didn't need to handle. 

There may be there was something there, but we should be service oriented People. 

So, and I agree with that, because I, I believe, even if there isn't liability, but especially if there's liability Just to do the kind thing. 

Yeah, I agree, And that's something that we need to see more in the world, I feel. 

Yeah, I totally agree with that. 

Um, This Gonna, I don't know what you can and can't state in this. 

This is going to be more of a harder question. 

What caused the release of the unredacted footage? 

Yeah, it's it's, I mean, it really is. 

It's public records, so This is exactly what happened. 

So we had. 

We compiled all of our. 

We compiled all of our redacted footage and put it into Dropbox Fuller when we did our initial news release. 

I'm being very forthcoming with you on this. 

So, Um, We also had others, so we had gone to the AG's office, the FBI, and in post. 

And obviously, the county attorney's office because they're the prosecuting entity, And we had asked them to look at this through a criminal lens to see if there were any other charges that they thought They're that existed because of like the mail carrier stuff that was in place, and things like that. 

Um, and then I also asked hey independently. 

Will you take a look at this and tell me. 

Come back to you if you have any issues with the operations of the conduct of the officers and things like that. 

So, So we, we did our initial release. 

Then we were working on a second release. 

Um, And that's aside from the point. 

But anyway, What we were, what our evidence technician was doing, was helping to compile on all of the unredacted video in a folder to share with our our federal agencies. 

And I don't know how. 

But, And it was a complete mistake, but somehow She attached all that video to the Dropbox folder that was already live. 

The one that everybody had access to, So I'll sudden I'll just unredacted video is getting dumped out right, and people are pulling it like crazy before. 

I mean, it took us a little bit before we realized what had happened. 

And so, um, at that point, Um, We, we made that, so we couldn't go out, right? 

There's, I mean, we can't release the miners and things, And so, then we did our third iteration. 

Where Did a more conservative redaction, Um, where we only redacted the things that They're working to bring significant liability issues to the city? 

And then we just released everything else. 

So, That's what happened. 

We weren't hacked. 

It wasn't intentional. 

It was a complete accident that came down to placing a folder in the wrong folder that had already been shared with the public due to the public scrutiny. 

Were we planning on releasing some of the redacted footage, especially that with um Johnson, Josh Johnson? 

So, it's my understanding that. 

Does that question make sense? 

Yeah, we have now. 

But before then, before the full release before the onward acted. 

We're replanning on releasing that, especially upon the request of Ben Schneider. 

Yeah, because we had started to get, um, Appeals to our grammar request, right? 

So, so we were already starting the process of okay. 

We need to start working through these appeals when that happened. 

So, Yes, we were already looking at this through the appeal lens of I, I guess. 

To answer your question is, we were already working down that path. 

Yes, And then this happened. 

So, No, that's that's good to hear. 

Okay, yeah, Yeah, You know? 

The the State law is very. 

It's very detailed, Um, as far as what we can and can't do when it comes to government records. 

There's not a lot of play Either began redacted and should, or we can redact it. 

And so, in my opinion, on the original release, just blur Josh Johnson for his privacy of that's what is required for his privacy. 

But It was of substantial on importance for the for for Ben Schneider and in the end for the public. 

Yeah, and you know, that's true. 

I, I think we probably tend to look at in people. 

Think we're in Cahoots with Johnson, We've never I've never interacted with him. 

Before this, we don't work for the church, right? 

We don't do any of that. 

I don't Have any allegiance to Johnson that doesn't fall within. 

You know off that my authority and my expectations is a police officer upholding the state loss, right? 

But we, we do look at things probably a little more heavily through a victim lens, Whether it's him or anybody else, and and are a genuine concern here is For anyone. 

That's a victim of stocking. 

Is anything that we do that that could potentially enable someone else to do more, whether it's a foyeurism or stocking or domestic violence or whatever it may be. 

Um, if there's places where we're on the fence or where we have some discretion In general, we will lead toward the side of the victim, because that that's our job. 

So Begin. 

Many can make the argument, though, that It's in the interest of society, though, to have the information in, and I understand all that. 

And I understand where you're coming from, for sure. 

But To the extent the law allows us to, and we do it constitutionally correctly in right, we do try to protect our victims the best we can, Um, and it. 

5:09 PM
Other than Or just. 

We're trying to help, But in this case, in other cases in, in order to protect the victim, you created another, And that's where we were going to get issues. 

Because if you're protecting the victim, but Than creating an even greater victim now, you just turned yourself into the bad guy. 

And then, who's going to protect that victim from you does? 

Does that concern make sense it? 

You're concern makes sense, and your perspective makes sense, and I respect that. 

I do disagree that we didn't turn someone else into. 

I do. 

I do disagree with that, and that's cool. 

All right. 

Do you understand what you're saying and I do respect that? 

100, um, I do not. 

I do not feel, and I still do not feel that Ben Schneider was a victim in this case. 

Um, and again, I'm not talking the general Legos case. 

I'm not talking about the stuff that happened out of Oregon. 

I'm talking specifically in our four cases. 

I do not believe that Ben Schneider is in any place to consider himself to be a victim. 

Um, so that's, that's my feeling Inside from some of the things that, obviously, some of the concerns that we have here that we've already addressed. 

So, do you believe his first amendment and Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights were infringed? 

You know, again, let's talk about that. 

I'm going to talk about. 

We'll talk about rights when we meet up again. 

Um, You brought us some issues with turning off cameras. 

That's an issue, right? 

I, I think there's concerns there, probably not, maybe two, as many as you have, but I've got that written down. 

And let's talk about that when we meet up again. 

Okay, because in my opinion, if you are infringing on any of those rights, they become a victim, And I understand where you're coming from because I'm I'm not some cheerleader for Ben, where I'm just like Ben is a perfect angel. 

And no, he's a prerogatory. 

He, he tries to get reactions a bit. 

He is not What I believe the police thought he was at the time, which is one of those YouTubers who will go into like a fast food restaurant and create a chaotic scene. 

I don't think we, I don't. 

Well, at least, that wasn't my opinion initially, either. 

But sorry, I cut you off. 

But When he comes in with a journalistic intent, there becomes it for you guys, especially a gray zone of where. 

When do we infringe on his First Amendment rights because Clearly he is a journalist? 

This has been viewed and interest of the public, And that has now been proven after the fact for you guys. 

So, With that being known, I mean, it's not that he can't do anything wrong, but he does have a First Amend. 

A high First Amendment interest. 

And so, From what I can see, Ben never trespassed on Josh Johnson's property. 

I don't know about. 

The Sandy hasn't released their body cams, which is annoying, because from what I've a little bit, I've heard they they need to be scrutinized, probably as much as you guys for tackling some innocent kid. 

Yeah, but you know, I, his Just wanting to to mention, even Even from a journalistic perspective. 

His First Amendment rights aren't any more important than anyone else's, right? 

All of them have equal importance. 

You can still come at something with a journalistic approach, and you can still meet, which I know you've asked and look over it. 

Whatever, at least I feel is there, but you can still meet criminal statutes right On. 

First Amendment, writes They don't. 

They don't take President's over. 

What are criminal statutes are? 

That's not correct, but it's It becomes a weight. 

It becomes weighing these rights versus those rights. 

Let me put it this way. 

First Amendment, writes, Do not suffice as an excuse to break the law. 

They just don't. 

Um, yeah, they just don't. 

That's what I'm trying to say. 

You can come at it with a photojournalistic Angle, whatever. 

But it still doesn't give you the right to us what you didn't, but to assault right to kidnap to trespass, of course, the speed, and we still we still have responsibility when we feel like there's probable cause it. 

Those elements have been met. 

We have to take action, because then if we don't, we get the other side of society coming in and saying, you guys don't do crowd, right? 

So, I do agree with what you're saying, but if he's met, if anyone really is meant the elements of a criminal statute, We would take action, but usually. 

So when, When it comes to First Amendment concern like that and those other things assaulting and everything, it becomes a weight of. 

If I kidnap you because I, let's say, I kidnap, you and I put you in this room because I want to talk with you, and I believe it's my first amendment right near the government. 

And so I get to talk with you. 

Yeah, I just kidnapped you. 

So, although it is my first amendment, right, you have a right not to be kidnapped, and so that's when it transfers into. 

Yeah, that's a crime. 

Because in the X in the attempt to exercise my rights, I am taking away from here So. 

But when those when that case doesn't happen. 

And there is weights in what you're saying, and that's generally not the police officers duty To Divi out, But It it needs to be taken more slowly and more cautiously, I feel. 

Yeah, there's. 

If we had slowed down in a lot of this, we probably would have avoided several of the issues we've discussed, and that's something. 

As a new Department, we've got our average time on patrol right now is between one and two years. 

And that's something we're continually trying to teach our officers is. 

If you have time on your side, You have time on your side. 

Slow down. 

What's approached this rationally? 

And let's figure out what we have. 

What we don't have, Um, and it seems like the times where we speed things up when we don't have to. 

Sometimes we don't have a choice By the times you speed things up, and we don't have to. 

It oftentimes creates issues for us, and so I agree, Okay. 

Is there anything upset you would want covered, or we want to ask me? 

I do have a question for you, So I thank you for coming in. 

I appreciate we can have a respectful dialogue. 

What? 

What are you is in Danish Siroca Saroka? 

I didn't want to everyone soldiers, my last name, sorry. 

So people who have even written it have like a Danny or Daniel. 

What do you, uh, usually Daniel, but I'm happy with that? 

Hey, so for Daniel saroka's Perspective, what all are you wanting to see Come from? 

Everything that we've talked about. 

That's a huge question. 

But what are you wanting to see? 

So, in the beginning, when this happened, first came out. 

I would have wanted to see a third party investigation, Um, which is to happen actually, so that's good to hear. 

Know that my opinion, essentially, is, is there's been a lot of third-party investigations if you want to lean on those from lawyers and people who have a lot of knowledge And I've leaned on them a lot in my review, But So third-part investigation. 

I would like to see an update to the camera policy to where an officer State's YMuts, his body, camera, and so much, so much less muting like it. 

The officers are muting, and oftentimes there's nothing going on. 

But then, if you forget to turn your camera back on, then it's just creates an issue. 

It sure does. 

So okay, Um, I would like to see some sort of reporting to have a second arm if that's through the gut through, um, the mayor, or through somebody else, to have an insight on some of these things. 

I know Salt Lake City Whenever they mute their body cam. 

They State the reason, and that then is consolidated into a report, and then goes to the city council for review, specifically formatting. 

So that's their policy. 

And that's done through the Salt Lake Code, I believe. 

I, I turned over. 

I, I hope you were sent that to from the the city recorder. 

Um, the document or the code from that from Salt Lake as as just a review. 

I'll double check, I think so, will let me double check. 

So okay, I would like to see officers double review charge, document the charge, the code before doing it, especially in the residential picketing I, and do. 

Do you just Do you disagree that there was? 

Do you agree based? 

I'm trying to figure out a phrase this Based on the phrasing in the code you believe. 

Ben Schneider is guilty of residential targeted residential picketing. 

Again, we're going to. 

I'm going to ask you a question when we come back and discuss this. 

I will answer that question, I promise. 

Okay, so I promise, You say, double? 

I forgot the word to use double check double to review. 

So when, when two officers or one officer double checking two officers would be better, but just to To make sure that The common sense of the code is being used, and it's not being Twisted to fulfill an officer officers, um, Intentions. 

Because I feel like that happened with the residential picketing code with the stocking there is. 

I disagree with the what, what the officers came up to, because at the time of his arrest, he was trying to serve a warrant. 

On the second case, there is a there is a double way of First Amendment riots to the criminal code because they were practicing First Amendment rights of of doing that at the time that that was, um, Intervened upon. 

There was no contact with Josh Johnson, So It's it's debatable. 

I guess that would have to be left with a prosecutor, but it's still I, I. 

When it comes to a lot of these things, It's just it's questionable, especially on the serving. 

Because I can't think of any more official business related act than attempting to serve papers. 

In fact, when courts often Put in Stalking injunctions and things along those lines, there is a specific clause in those that they are still allowed to deliver court papers. 

And so That's the issue I have there, Um? 

And honestly, those would be the main things Okay, and I know it doesn't seem like a lot. 

5:20 PM
Me, it's just so simple. 

Like, update the body cam policy so that we're following it more. 

It's strictly and that there's reasons and and transparency at behind why a camera is muted because there are reasons, but there should be rare, very rare. 

Yeah, very rare. 

I mean, real, really. 

I like what you said that Sometimes. 

I mean, Let's maybe rely more on the read action side of things if it's recorded it's there. 

We can find it out, right? 

But if it's not there, it's not. 

It's never going to be there. 

It's not there. 

So 100, I'm with yelling out okay, All right. 

Anything else that you would like to see come as a result of everything that we've discussed here and that we'll discuss when we meet again. 

I would have to see what the third party inter the the third party investigation says there are people who saying this officer needs to be fired or this off to mode it. 

I don't know enough about policies and things to have a direct opinion on saying, this is what we need to do, Um, One side note that I would like to say, I don't know if I will, is Based on my opinion, and you can go to the third party to see if they come to the same opinion. 

A request to the prosecutor to dismiss the charges just because of what I believe, but I know from what this conversation is. 

It sounds like we have a differing of opinions, at least especially on the stocking charge, But on the residential picketing. 

I can't get my head around. 

Okay, yeah, okay, all right. 

We'll look at that and talk. 

No problem, Anything else I I can do? 

We'll meet up again. 

Um, and I'll go through. 

I've taken the notes. 

We'll go through every single thing. 

I don't want you to leave, Even if it's that we don't agree on something, but I want you to leave without something being answered. 

Anything else right now or between now and then? 

I Help you with or help Alay any concerns or anything else that I can do right now. 

Um, officer kitchen being an SRO is going to make his life more difficult. 

And the reason I say that is. 

Middle schoolers are vicious, Um, there you are going to know about it. 

They are going to find out about it. 

They are going to spread it, and it is going to make his life miserable. 

And for both their best interest and his best interest. 

I wouldn't put him in that situation if And there's in my mind there's debate if he should or shouldn't be an officer, but I'll leave that to the professionals to decide, but just common sense to me with that. 

I'm just looking at it, and it's just Either. 

It's going to put so much pressure on them that he's going to quit without us wanting him to quit, or it's going Explode. 

And something's going to come out of it. 

Okay, does that concern make sense? 

It does, so I'll I'll talk a little bit about this. 

I know it doesn't have much to do with what we're talking about, but you know when the incident first happened Well after the incident first happened. 

We we try to put our. 

We try to put a really good officers in our schools. 

That's not a place where we tuck away officers that just we don't want to round it. 

Um, And our relationship with the principles in the schools in our city is, is excellent. 

So one of the first things I did is, I went straight to principal Johnson, who's the principal of the junior High. 

And I said, hey, where are you at on this. 

Do you want to see a change what I'm I'm basically here for you guys? 

And what he said was We love Bronson kitchen. 

The students love Bronson kitchen. 

We've had more people more kids. 

Sign up for his Elio classes this next year, then we've ever had. 

We do not want to change. 

We want him to stay here, And that carries that carries a lot of weight with me, especially with principal Johnson news. 

He's an incredible guy. 

Truthfully, Teddy. 

Come back and said, Oh yeah, like, we need to change. 

This is, We would have made one, And if that's the case, and that's the decision we're coming to. 

I would at least leave that door open to him, saying that there are concerns that this might happen and to just to make everyone's life as easier if that, if we do see that happening, please communicate, so that, yeah, and he knows, we've actually been checking in. 

And, according to principal Johnson, and I can't even attest to this because I'm not at the school, but according to them, the kids love Bronson and there are there are no issues in have been. 

No issues, And the other thing, too, is I have not heard from a single parent of current students at the junior high, and I'm not saying that they don't exist. 

They could I personally have not heard from a single parent of the junior High regarding bronzing kitchen. 

Okay, so, So I get where you're coming from to students or value. 

I mean valuable that our relationship with those students is very valuable. 

Sorry, he's what I'm trying to say their assets. 

Yeah, and we there are future, right? 

So, if there's something that's going to be detrimental, we will make it change. 

And Again with with Bronson. 

We've told him, too, like, hey, You messed up, you're disciplined. 

Here are the things, just so you know if this happens again. 

It's there's going to be some serious issues, right? 

So his, he doesn't have an employment right to just be up at the junior High. 

She's got to be doing his job, and he's got to be doing it well When that changes, Which I don't think it will, but if it does will change it, we'll make it change. 

And so, Uh, but yeah, just. 

I don't know if that helps provide a little context it does and background. 

Um, but I think the the biggest weight regarding opinion that I I carry from. 

This is actually from school administration, and I understand that I've been in. 

I agree with it, honestly, but it. 

The big thing is to look into it, and it sounds like you are doing that. 

Yeah, Okay. 

Another term that I've heard while Talking with people is the term lawful but awful but lawful. 

Do you have any? 

Do you know what that? 

What the term, Yeah. 

So I've heard that before and generally what that means is It kind of plays into just because we can do something doesn't mean we always should do something right. 

There may be a use of force that is Technically Lawful. 

It technically needs Department policy, but Could we get handled it a better way? 

Yes, Or could we have done something that maybe it didn't get to that point? 

Yes, So that's kind of what I, I see, that as Is just because we can't do something just doesn't mean that we always should do it that way. 

So, I have heard that term before, Because that kind of adds some context. 

Yeah, just something that I heard, and it could be twisted. 

It sounds like in two different ways, and so I'm just yeah. 

From the law enforcement side, you'll hear that probably from administrators more than anything of Yeah, technically. 

You're within policy, but Dude, you shouldn't have done that. 

You should have done something else, or you should have done something different, or you shouldn't have escalated it to that level. 

And, and we're going to do some training as a result, And this one is completely off topic. 

This question, this is more just morbid curiosity. 

Did something happen in 2025? 

I'd noticed that there were a lot of office who left the department in 2025. 

I don't know if that just happened stance or So, Who left you have a list because I can give them a really good officers in 2015. 

We have, um Anderson. 

Russell Is such a good guy, He he retarded. 

He finally hit his time. 

That's what it looked like on the timing. 

He's awesome. 

He was our community engagement officer. 

It was great Joshua Christensen same. 

He is 20 years super super awesome, guy lifelong, a effort. 

He's awesome! 

Stuart 4. 

Oh man, such a good guy. 

He retired. 

He's working down at a County Sheriff's Office in Mississippi right now. 

Such a good such a good guy. 

So he retired, though Zachary good, though. 

So, that was, That was Where he resigned, and that essentially was a forced resignation Again. 

We have standards in policies and things here. 

If you continually don't meet those, you're going to get to a point where you don't work anymore. 

Austin Lund, such a good guy. 

He's one of my close friends. 

He's working on a Spanish Fork right now. 

His family moved to Spanish Fork, and so he just didn't want you Kyrion Merit. 

Yeah, she didn't actually make it out of FTO, So We have a three-month fto process of field training process, And we had some recurring issues in. 

So we let her Carlos moots the arboleu. 

Yeah, so he actually was recruited by Ice, so he resigned from emergency and works for ice now. 

Um, Jacob Thacker, Yeah, he he, um, left. 

It'll work for County, And That's something you just always wanted. 

Sounds like 20, 25, was just a hard year with with. 

Yeah, we. 

We actually traditionally haven't had officers Meat reach 20 years, because A lot of times they've left before, and so we're finally. 

And there's a lot of history that goes on there. 

But Yeah, we had several officers of retired, and we lost some good guys. 

So, and I just noticed that when I was looking through this that there was a lot of 2025s. 

I'm like, did something happen, or is it because they a lot of them were the more senior officers as well? 

Yeah, so retirement. 

And As much as we try to get him to stay And I get it. 

When you're done, you're done so, but they're good people. 

It's a stressful job, I can't. 

Imagine yeah, yeah, it can be. 

So, Um, This is more of another just personal concern that came up in my investigations, um, Dark burn. 

Did I mistake his name? 

Oh, there's one sec, Blackburn, my apologies. 

Oh yes, yes, okay. 

What do you want? 

What do you want to know? 

So he had two incidences one in 2020, with um, Cody, Greenland, and another incident. 

And these are major incidents with the with the ropes Tops, the Thorps Thorps, yeah, and his. 

5:38 PM
Why wasn't Fired at that time? 

Or Yeah, so the the primary. 

And again, I'm I'm being forthcoming with you on, so you're not recording me, right? 

But Um, That the main instigator of that 2020 Greenland case Was an officer named Derek Cannon, And There were some issues Based. 

Essentially, he was forced to resign, and that was one of the reasons. 

And so, Um, the other officers, You know, Derek Derek, did? 

He should not have done what he did. 

There's that was so bad, so But you know the other officers that there wasn't any type of an excessive use of force That was found by the agency. 

I was not that I know. 

This sounds like a cop-out. 

I was not the chief at the time. 

Um, And I've got my own Opinions about that case. 

Didn't matter at the time because I wasn't the chief, And I will say that with the Thrps as well, Um, There were. 

There were some issues Were found to have been Justified When that is not necessarily my opinion. 

And I was on the chief at the time I took over in October of 2021, and so, So I, I get it. 

And I agree. 

But yeah, he was retained until Steph came out about What everything that had happened of in Idaho. 

And then he was forced to design, So That incident have Idaho happened in September of 2021 and has employment continued for For several months. 

After that, Six months Something like that? 

I'm not going to do the exact method. 

So was, When did we find out about it? 

And then, was he just put on immediately administrative leave for further? 

Yeah, I just want to know the timeline on that, because I, from what I could read on. 

My reports that I saw was that it happened That that was released, or Um reported pretty quickly in September. 

Yeah, so, um, this is public record actually. 

So what happened? 

I remember this pretty vividly. 

I was down into City meeting. 

He calls me and says, hey, I need to talk about something. 

I scoot over to the kitchen and he starts to kind of tell me what he's being accused of. 

So He had been contacted by detective, Didn't handle it well, And so at that point we we got involved. 

So We immediately, like same day, put him on administrative leave. 

And then we started end internal Affairs investigation, And based on our interview and Our investigation, He never admitted to anything. 

But it was clear to us There was something there that had happened in that he wasn't being truthful, and so shortly after he resigned him, so I don't know Why it took so long from the Inception of the case To the detective talking to Blackburn. 

But as soon as we found out it was adminally, demeanor shortly after he's gone because reading that report it made me sick, and then we actually. 

We eventually arrested him on his warrant, um, and, um, That was a. 

That was interesting, so but you know you. 

That's horrible, so. 

And then It sounds like it's been adjudicated and he's in prison. 

So, so, yeah, that we, we do not tolerate that stuff, so He was gone right away. 

And then I, I believe he might be coming up for, um, Like a parole parole. 

If he does happen, I know we haven't pressed charges in Utah yet. 

I don't know if that was just because we Idaho swooped in and did it, and so we just didn't do our investigation. 

But I, I would not be against Utah doing their own investigation if he gets out on parole because it just so. 

There was an investigation that was done, And it was some. 

I'm gonna I'm gonna slaughter this. 

It was like it was Iron County or maybe Duchesne. 

It was one of those counties that did it in investigation. 

They did like cjc interviews, And for whatever reason, I'm not the county attorney, but for whatever reason, they felt like they didn't. 

Well, I'm not even going to say that, for whatever reason, they didn't file. 

I think they have probable cause based on the CGC interviews and what was disclosed, but whatever they did what they did. 

I don't know why, Um, it doesn't mean they couldn't. 

I don't know what The statue I'm sure has now run. 

There's not a statute of limitations on some of that stuff so they could pick it back up, but I don't know why they didn't charge on that. 

I, I don't know, either. 

It might be because I know Idaho was going to do something and they didn't want Cross with them, but it just it was. 

Yeah, yeah, that's, that's horrible. 

Cool. 

What other questions Okay? 

Do you have any other questions or concerns for me or any of the other cases opinions that I, I don't, I don't? 

Um, this is great. 

So, Probably two weeks, is that? 

Is that okay? 

Okay, I'll have Sarah get back with you. 

We'll get all this done, and then we'll meet up again, and we'll roll through everything okay, um, one other request. 

Yeah, If a homeowner have it in the policy, just make sure officers understand if a homeowner requests an officer leave and they do not have, Um, Exceptional cause, probable cause A warrant, not even probable cause, because usually if you have probable cause and you're dealing with a home, you usually have to get a warrant for that. 

Anyways, They leave, and then they get their warrant and then move on from there. 

Because two of these incidents happened when officers were attempting to contact a homeowner that didn't want to be contacted. 

And if you, Yeah, How we are talking about the roundy case, and how we handle that was not, was not okay. 

There were so many different things we could have done on that case, But you're right. 

The minute I go up and knock and I announce myself, and they say, go away. 

That means I go away Until I have a warrant or there's some other exception, right, that exists. 

And so, We've done training on that. 

Um, you shouldn't be pounding on the door as well, and doing all of that stuff. 

Um, so That's a case we did training on right after, but I agree, There's just so many ways we could have held that, but just leave. 

And let's do a summons. 

They can just smell them. 

A summons like, we don't have to give a citation We just sometimes would cause a lot more work for ourselves than just do it that way down. 

So, and that's the thing is, just Like I, I keep pushing the Constitution, but just make sure the officers understand what they're swearing an oath to what that means. 

And because They they need to be held accountable to that document. 

And It's, it's a concern for everyone when they aren't. 

Yeah, for sure. 

Okay, All right. 

Okay, Dad, thank you. 

I'm serious. 

Yeah, and we'll go from there. 

Okay, I'll send an email with you, and with the mayor. 

Just saying that we had this meeting, is that okay? 

Oh yeah, for sure. 

I, if you want whatever he does on his end, it's but yeah, absolutely. 

Um, Not totally fine. The only thing that's semi edible is probably the present. 

This letter look at the house. 

6:37 PM