K. Andrew Fitzgerald Grand County Attorney 125 East Center Street Moab, Utah 84532 (435) 259-1326 (435) 259-3926 FAX. August 25,2016 Mike Navarre, Chief ‘Moab City Police Department 217 E. Center Street Moab, UT 84532 Dear Chief Navarre, ‘This leter isto inform your agency regarding muliple criminal cases that have been either dismissed or not filed due to police officer misconduct. ‘As you are aware, there have been a number of problematic issues regarding Officer Althoff and Officer Olsen that have come to light in zecent months. Initially, defense attorneys came forward to the County Attomey's Office with complaints regarding the aforementioned officers. As you are aware, complaints regarding police officers are not uncommon among defense counsel and their clients. The County Attomey’s Office takes complains regarding law enforcement seriously. however, the ‘complaints are usually unfounded or unsupported by the evidence. Subsequently, a Suppression Hearing occurred early this summer where Orficer Olsen testified as well as Officer Risenhoover in a case that also involved Officer Althoff. In that hearing there were a number of anomalies that suggested not only inregularties in the case but also gave rise to question whether the officer testimony was ‘truthful and whether certain facts were omitted, ‘Upon further inquiry and investigation by the both this office and the FBI, it became clear that testimony from Officer Olsen and Althoff could not be relied upon and Called into question whether Officer Risenhoover’s testimony could be relied upon as well. As a result, our office put on hold any cases where Officer Althoff or Olsen had a ‘major role in the cases, pending further investigation. Eventually, it was determined that the veracity of Officer Olsen and Althof?’s: testimony could not be relied upon under oath and our office dismissed all cases where Officers Althoff and Olsen had significant roles.Mike Navarre, Chief Page Two August 25,2016 It is unfortunete that our office had to dismiss these Officers’ cases due to the fact that the victims in the cases and our community will never receive justice for the erimes perpetrated against them. However, the integrity of the process and the need to ensure the veracity of witnesses outweighs proceeding on cases with police officers thet are ‘compromised. Sincerely, =a Grand County Attomey ce: Rebecca Davidson, City Manager KAF/thK. Andrew Fitzgerald Grand County Attorney 125 E. Center Street Moab, Utah 84532 (435) 259-1385, September 22", 2016 Chief Steve Ross Moab City Police Department 217 E. Center Street Moab, UT 84532 : Issues Regarding Officer Risenhoover Dear Chief Ross, As you are aware, an officer of the law requires a high level of integrity, competency, and reliability in carrying out their duties under difficult if not dangerous circumstances. Officers are exposed to direct harm on a daily basis while protecting the Public from criminal elements in the community. in addition, law enforcement officers have a duty to protect the Constitution of the United States as well in their dealings with the public and ensure that due process and equal protection are afforded to all citizens. It is regarding these important duties that I write to you about regarding Officer Steven Risenhoover. Over the course of a year there have been multiple issues regarding Officer Steve Risenhoover that have come to my attention and that cause significant concern, IRS Recently, the Moab PD completed an 1A regarding a tax issue conceming Officer Risenhoover. In summary, Officer Risenhoover failed to pay taxes for the last 10 years based upon his belief that paying taxes was unconstitutional. Officer Risenhoover resolved this issue with a payment plan to the IRS for back taxes. Regardless of Officer Risenhoover's belief and his level of sincerity regarding his explanation for failing to pay taxes, the IA is discoverable under Brady, Giglio, and Bagley . Therefore, itis possible that the information in the IA could be used to impeach Officer Risenhoover in a bench or jury trial on the reasoning that by not paying taxes, an officer is being dishonest and therefore his credibility as a witness is compromised. Officer Risenhoover's IA becomes a significant hurdle for the prosecution in any case and even more of a hurdle in a case where the crime is of high level. The upshot is that Officer Riesnhoover's 1A regardinghis failure to pay taxes, on its own, compromises Officer Risenhoover's ability to testify in a court of law. CORDING INC This issue involved Officer Risenhoover testifying at a suppression hearing in the Cordingley case. At the suppression hearing, there were some irregularities that caused immediate concem. First, Officer Risenhoover, while on the stand attempted to not reveal the informant in the case, which tuned out o be Officer Althoff. According to testimony at the hearing, Officer Althoff informed Officers Risenhoover and Olsen regarding a party that was taking place where multiple juveniles were drinking and smoking marijuana. Upon information and belief, Officer Althoff knew about this party because his girlfriend lived atthe house where the party was occurring and it appears that Officer Risenhoover ‘was attempting to improperly protect Officer Althoff's confidences. Initially, when my office became aware of this case, | was shocked that Officers Risenhoover, Althoff, and Olsen made no arrests on any of the 12 to 18 juveniles and ‘gathered no evidence. Some of the juveniles present at the party were on juvenile probation and juvenile probation should have been consulted. This lack of police action is highly unusual under the fact scenario and appeared improper to the Sheriff Deputies that were on scene. On the stand at the suppression hearing Officer Risenhoover testified that he thought as an officer he had the discretion to not make arrests and take evidence. ‘Clearly, Officer Risenhoover is wrong on this account. ‘Subsequently, information was revealed that indicated that the testimony at the ‘suppression hearing was likely not accurate, truthful, and omitted important facts. Some of this information is linked to the investigation of Officers Althoff and Olsen on various ‘matters of misconduct. Officer Risenhoover was a main witness in this hearing and was present at the scene of the crime. This case was dismissed by myself because of the likelihood that the information presented to the judge for his ruling could not be relied tupon for its veracity and it is unlikely that Officer Risenhoover did not know of the inaccuracies and omitted facts and the improprieties of Officer Olsen and Althoff. ‘THREATS TO DEFENSE COUNSEL: This issue involves a threat made by Officer Risenhoover directed at attorney Happy Morgan that was communicated to TJ Brewer at the Fire Station. The threat was of the nature where Officer Risenhoover said to Mr. Brewer that he was going to make sure Happy Morgan and her assistant Crystal Alvarez went to prison due to Ms. Morgan's involvement in the Officer Althoff/Officer Olsen investigations. According to information and belief, Mr. Brewer was so disturbed by this communication that he immediately walked over to Ms. Morgan's office and reported the threat to Ms. Alvarez, ‘who immediately called Ms. Morgan who was traveling at th ‘Subsequently, ‘Officer Risenhoover found out about Mr. Brewer's communication to Ms. Morgan,confronted Mr. Brewer, and Mr. Brewer reported the conversation to Ms. Alvarez. Ms. Alvarez has issued a swom affidavit regarding what was told to her by Mr. Brewer. Furthermore, in the bar complaint that Officer Althoff filed against Ms. Morgan, Officer Althoff states that Officer Risenhoover was making accusations against Ms. Morgan and cites Officer Risenhoover as a source for Officer Althoff"s grievances ‘against Ms. Morgan. This independent bar complaint filed by Officer Althoff supports {the notion that Officer Risenhoover is making statements regarding a defense attomey that are improper for a police officer to make, especially considering Ms. Morgan is an officer ofthe court, pI EI IN AND DMV. IN This issue occurred where Officer Risenhoover contacted the ‘County Attomey’s Officer prior to a DMV hearing and suggested, implied, and indicated his intention to ‘omit and hide the fact that a recent toxicology report came back as negative for intoxicating substances. The staff members told Officer Risenhoover that intent for the toxicology report was not proper and told Officer Risenhoover that he could not omit the results, ‘Subsequently, my office obtained a copy of the DMV hearing regarding this case ‘and although Officer Risenhoover was never directly asked about the toxicology report, hhe never reported that the report was available or thatthe results were negative. JUVENILE CASE: This case involves an incident where Officer Risenhoover forbid a juvenile female from entering her house because Officer Risenhoover heard the voice of the female’s boyfriend and father in the house making statements about hiding from the Officer. The problem with Officer Risenhoover's supposition is that the boyfriend was ‘with the female prior to arriving at the house and was dropped off at another location when they saw the police car in the driveway. Additionally, the female's father was out of town at the time. Hence, there was no one in the home and Officer Risenhoover could not have heard voices in the home indicating that the boyfriend needed to hide. Officer Risenhoover forbid the female from going in to her home alone, and upon pressuring the Juvenile, entered the home with the juvenile. No persons were discovered in the home. Not only is this an illegal search and seizure, but also, itis clear that Officer Risenhoover's belief that he heard voices was not accurate and likely fabricated to gain entry into the home. (ois 3-1 This case occurred where Officer Risenhoover thar ett pee smelled like alcohol and marijuana. As a result Mi from his home. although an individual with significant criminal history, ‘and his own veracity problems, adamantly denied smoking marijuana or drinking alcohol. as polygraphed regarding whether or not he was being truthful about not.smoking marijuana or drinking alcohol on the day in question and was found to be truthful This case regarding MAME on its own is not demonstrative of any clear pattem of improper police action on the part of Officer Risenhoover and certainly a polygraph cannot be relied upon with certainty. However, in conjunction with the other issues above, one has to question the veracity of the facts in this case CONCLUSION In conclusion, each of the above issues by itself creates doubt about the ability of Officer Risenhoover's ability to convincingly testify under cath in a court of law. If one looks at the totality of the circumstances regarding the above issues, itis clear that Officer Risenhoover's veracity as a witness is compromised. Furthermore, if you disregard and discount several ofthe issues outlined above, the result is that the Officer's ability to testify is till compromised. Therefore, the Grand County Attomey’s Office will not be able to call Officer Risenhoover as a witness in any case in Grand County. For the same reasons, Officer Risenhoover should not be in control of any evidence, the evidence locker, or be allowed to write affidavits. Itis unfortunate that this conclusion has been reached and it is not reached without much contemplation and sincerity. However, the public deserves to be Protected not only from criminals on the street, but also from the government and those the government employs.K. Andrew Fitzgerald Grand County Attorney 125 E. Center Street Moab, Utah 84532 Couty (438) 259-1385 September 22, 2016 Chief Steve Ross ‘Moab City Police Department 217 E. Center Street Moab, UT 84532 Re: Issues Regarding Officer Shaun Hansen Dear Chief Ross, As you are aware, an officer of the law requires a high level of integrity, competency, and reliability in carrying out their duties under difficult if not dangerous Circumstances. Officers are exposed to direct harm on a daily basis while protecting the Public from criminal elements in the community. In addition, law enforcement officers hhave a duty to protect the Constitution of the United States as well in their dealings with the public and ensure that due process and equal protection are afforded to all citizens. It is regarding these important duties that | write to you about regarding Officer Shaun Hansen. Over the course of the last several years there have been multiple issues regarding Officer Shaun Hansen that cause significant concem. These concems cause significant problems regarding Officer Hansen's ability to testify in a court of law. 6 DRUG-TASK FORCE: ‘ Several years ago, our community had a drug task force that was instrumental in doing undercover work in apprehending illegal drug distribution. Officer Hansen had a significant role as an undercover task force agent for many years. At some point, the task force and the outside agencies that were members of the task force indicated that they did ‘not want to participate with Grand County if Officer Hansen was involved. As of current, this sentiment from other agencies outside Grand County continues and handicaps Grand Counties’ ability to perform its essential law enforcement duties. The reasoning behind task force member's exclusion is not certain; however, it appears that it isan issue of trust.Perhaps a review of Officer Hansen's personnel file would shed some light on this, issue and itis recommended that the Moab Police Department review the situation. ‘SPOUSE CRIMINAL CHARGES: This issue is regarding Officer Hansen's spouse and her criminal charges. In 2012, Nesha Hansen, Officer Hansen’s wife was convicted of felony possession of drugs ‘and was placed on supervised probation. The allegation was that Mrs. Hansen was forging drug prescriptions at her place of employment to illegally obtain narcotics. During this time, Officer Hansen was working undercover on the drug task force. ‘Subsequently, Mrs. Hansen was charged with Theft in November of 2015 for allegations of stealing cash from her employer. The theft case is currently pending. ‘These criminal episodes reflect poorly on Officer Hansen’s reputation as a law ‘enforcement officer. Because Moab is a small town, itis reasonable that a jury member ‘and other members of the community would consider Officer Hansen’ reputation to be in question due to the marital association. Furthermore, when the 2015 theft charge was filed, Officer Hansen sent me ‘multiple text messages regarding his wife's criminal charges. Due to the nature of the case, I conflicted the case to the conflict prosecutor per ethical considerations. However, upon receiving the texts, I felt uncomfortable with the texts because the texts appeared as ‘an improper lobby to influence Mrs. Hansen’s criminal case. POENAS: This issue came to my attention multiple times due to a pattern formed over time. ‘On numerous occasions when Officer Hansen was subpoenaed to court, Officer Hansen ‘would attempt to avoid coming to court to testify. Usually the reason would be that Officer Hansen had to be at training or some other personal scheduling conflict. This has ‘occurred so often over time, that my office is not certain whether Officer Hansen can be relied upon to appear on his cases. The County Attomey’s Office always attempts to ‘accommodate scheduling conflicts and makes significant efforts to accommodate officer schedules. However, the amount of scheduling conflicts and reluctance to appear in court hhas become a burden on my office and suggests that Officer Hansen is not properly vested in his casework. SSUES: There are a multitude of other issues that are communicated to my office on occasion regarding Officer Hansen. Although it is common to hear complaints about police officers, it seems that the amount of complaints regarding Officer Hansen rise above the norm.BRADY FILE: As you may be aware, the County Attomey’s Office is required to maintain Brady files. A review of the Brady file on Officer Hansen reveals some irregularities in several ‘cases where Officer Hansen made arrests. Some of these cases were dismissed due to the irregularities and the gaps in the evidence created by the irregularities. Although this information is not conclusive, it cals into question whether Officer Hansen's ability to testify is compromised CONCLUSION In conclusion. itis recommended that the Moab City Police Department review its files regarding Officer Hansen and provide the relevant information to my office per Brady, Giglio, and Bagley. Information that would compromise an officer's ability to testify is required to be disclosed to the prosecutor to ensure that due process is not compromised. ‘The totality of the circumstances outlined above makes it clear that Officer Hansen's ability to testify in a court of law is compromised and can not be relied upon to successfully convince a jury. Also, the reluctance of other law enforcement agencies to work with Officer Hansen is conceming and requires additional inquiry. Therefore, Officer Hansen will not be called as a witness to testify in court, and can not be in charge of police functions that require testimony in court such as having access tothe evidence locker and writing sworn affidavi It is unfortunate that this conclusion has been reached. However, due process and the integrity of the criminal justice system requires this result