10/31/2024
Please read
From the desk of Deschutes County Sheriff L. Shane Nelson
In the past week, I have received numerous emails and phone calls requesting our office make a statement on Mr. Vander Kamp’s current status.
The Source did a news article that contained the link to the La Mesa documents. The Court ordered candidate Vander Kamp to post a link to the La Mesa documents on his campaign website.
Here are the La Mesa Documents and Source story links as well.
La Mesa Documents link : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/hgpvp3peaeexreqmx0125/AMUNB6EwBAGj0AbuDJDq_Vc?rlkey=anlged2v9tt8kby2e56psvfut&st=4x65flce&dl=0
Article link: https://www.bendsource.com/news/internal-investigation-documents-against-sheriff-candidate-kent-vander-kamp-made-public-21997383
These are the most asked questions to the Sheriff’s Office this week:
· Is Deschutes County’s Sheriff’s Office internal investigation of Sergeant Kent Vander Kamp complete? Answer: “No, this investigation is still ongoing. Mr. Vander Kamp has not been exonerated.”
o If so, have all personnel records been shared publicly from the La Mesa PD & Deschutes County Circuit Court? Answer: The Court ordered the candidate to post a link to the La Mesa documents on his campaign website.
o If not, will any additional information be shared prior to the Deschutes County Sheriff election on Tuesday, November 5th? Answer: "I am not aware of any further information that will be released prior to the election."
· Would the Deschutes County Sheriff Office (DCSO) consider employing an individual with these La Mesa PD allegations for a job at the DCSO today? Answer: "No, we would not."
· Could the allegations of misconduct and dishonesty against Sergeant Kent Vander Kamp from La Mesa PD’s internal investigation potentially lead to a loss of his law enforcement certifications in the State of Oregon, and/or disqualify him from being a Sheriff? Answer: "That is a possibility. The Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) would make that decision. The Sheriff’s Office investigation is to determine whether there are violations of Sheriff’s Office policies and appropriate employment actions. The question of being disqualified from serving as Sheriff is not within the scope of the Sheriff’s Office investigation. The DPSST may review his certification but the Sheriff’s Office does not have the authority to review his certification.
· Please refer to the email I sent to OPB (Oregon Public Broadcasting) on September 30, 2024 regarding information on Brady and certification." (see below)
Our office’s emailed answer to OPB’s question on election allegations:
“This is not election interference. Our office is fulfilling its legal obligation and duty to investigate complaints. In the Spring of 2024, our office received a citizen complaint about Mr. Vander Kamp’s prior employment at La Mesa Police Department. Because, as it has been reported in local media stories Mr. Vander Kamp has denied any prior law enforcement experience, we have an obligation to determine if he was untruthful.
Oregon law requires that a law enforcement agency investigate allegations of serious misconduct or dishonesty, and depending on the investigation findings, it may require reporting to other agencies such as the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training or the District Attorney’s Office. ORS 181A.681(3)(c) requires an agency to conduct an investigation when the agency receives a report of misconduct or a violation of the minimum standards for moral fitness for public safety personnel established under ORS 181A.410. Moral fitness specifically includes allegations of dishonesty or untruthfulness. OAR 265-010-0025 (administrative rule defining moral character for officers). The rule also requires that if an agency determines that a public safety officer has engaged in conduct that demonstrates a lack of good moral character, the agency is required by Oregon law to impose a disciplinary sanction of termination. Investigations having sustained findings of serious misconduct or lack of moral character require our agency to notify the DPSST Academy so they can do their part in reviewing a law enforcement officer’s certification.
If a law enforcement agency were to ignore, or fail to investigate allegations that a law enforcement officer is untruthful, that would contradict the 2021 police reform bills enacted by the Oregon Legislature and the expectations of our community. I do not believe that the public nor our Legislature would endorse a policy of ignoring or failing to investigate allegations that a current law enforcement officer has been untruthful or dishonest.
Regarding notification to the District Attorney, for over fifty years, law enforcement agencies have been required to notify prosecutors of potentially exculpatory information, such as a finding that an officer was untruthful, pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963). Prosecutors have an obligation to provide this information to defendants in criminal cases involving that officer, and our office is required to notify our D. A.’s Office of investigation results with sustained findings of untruthfulness. A finding of untruthfulness by a law enforcement officer is potentially exculpatory information for purposes of the Brady v. Maryland case. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has held that police officers who failed to notify the prosecutor of exculpatory information violated the suspect’s constitutional rights under Brady v. Maryland. Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco, 570 F3d 1078 (9th Cir 2008).
“The law enforcement profession requires the highest integrity and ethics. It is a profession that can legally affect individual community members’ civil rights. The community permits police officers to wield the power to arrest and use deadly force, but with that incredible power comes responsibility. Only those law enforcement officers who have impeccable integrity should be allowed to wear the badge and utilize this power. When an officer is alleged to have engaged in serious misconduct, such as being untruthful, we owe our community a full investigation into the circumstances, as the Oregon Legislature has explicitly stated.” Sheriff L. Shane Nelson
