"The County Attorney’s Office reviewed the materials when received, and at that time, did not feel there were any issues warranting criminal charges or further action."

The following memorandum is published here in its entirety:

TO:  Media

FROM: Jeani L. Stone, Campbell County & Prosecuting Attorney

In October, 2009, former Deputy Sheriff Dave Lauck provided a binder of information alleging misconduct by the Campbell County Sheriff’s Department and other law enforcement agencies to the Campbell County Attorney’s Office for review.  Lauck indicated in his letter that he had provided copies of the information to Governor Freudenthal, Attorney General Salzburg, DCI Director Forrest Bright, and Campbell Commissioner's Chairperson Dan Coolidge.  Additional information was received upon request by the County Attorney’s Office in December, 2009.  There were four recordings provided for review.  After receiving the initial binder of information, I then made contact with DCI, the Attorney General's Office, and the Commissioners.  After speaking with those entities, the County Attorney's Office agreed to be the primary agency to review the information and make a determination if there was any criminal wrongdoing.

When a complaint comes into the County Attorney's Office, other than through law enforcement, the County Attorney’s Office reviews the materials and makes a preliminary assessment as to whether or not additional investigation needs to be conducted. In the event the initial review warrants additional investigation, the County Attorney's Office contacts a law enforcement agency to do that investigation and then subsequently reviews that information to determine if criminal charges are warranted.  If the review reveals no criminal wrongdoing, the matter is closed.  If criminal wrongdoing is identified then the County Attorney’s Office makes a determination if criminal charges will be filed.

The County Attorney’s Office reviewed the materials when received, and at that time, did not feel there were any issues warranting criminal charges or further action.  As a result, did not generate any findings.  Given the recent inquiry by the Gillette News-Record of Mr. Lauck’s assertions, the County Attorney’s Office has prepared this memorandum so as to best address the issues in as comprehensive manner as possible.

From the County Attorney’s Office review of the materials provided, Mr. Lauck raises essentially six primary areas of concern: unreasonable use of force, failure to protect Bryce Chavers, racism/racial slurs and anti-gay sentiments by employees of the Campbell County Sheriff’s Department, misconduct by Campbell County Sheriff’s Department employees,  supervision of employees by other family members, and Lauck’s employment/termination at the Campbell County Sheriff’s Department.   The County Attorney’s Office inquiry is limited to a determination of whether there was any criminal wrongdoing.

The County Attorney’s Office was somewhat limited in its review of the materials as much of the information and incidents appear to be intertwined throughout the materials making it difficult to sort out, and the quality of the recordings provided was compromised in many parts. In addition, many of the incidents were not identified by defendant’s name, date or report number.  There were a number of issues raised in Mr. Lauck’s information, however, this response is limited to what has been determined as the bulk of Mr. Lauck’s concerns.  The County Attorney’s Office has made every attempt to identify the issue or incident, and to the extent possible, evaluate as to violations of criminal statutes. 

Mr. Lauck’s allegations date back as early as 1990 and involve former and current administrations of the Campbell County Sheriff’s Department, its employees, and allegations of misconduct by the Gillette Police Department.  Many of the areas raised by Mr. Lauck were also contained in the federal civil lawsuit initiated against Campbell County and Sheriff Bill Pownall in 2008.  In that suit, Lauck argued among other things, breach of contract, due process violations, retaliation, and emotional distress.  The federal civil lawsuit was subsequently dismissed by the federal court judge after a motion for summary judgment request made by the county.  Mr. Lauck has filed, and an appeal is pending, on this issue.

The six areas of concern identified by Mr. Lauck and reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office, include the following:

1.  Unreasonable Use of Force.  Mr. Lauck identifies several events over the last two decades where he claims law enforcement officers used unreasonable force.  As noted above, Mr. Lauck does not identify these incidents by the name of the suspect or the victim but instead makes reference to some of the facts contained in the incident, sometimes making it difficult to ascertain what incident he is referring to.   

The Campbell County Sheriff’s Department has a policy regarding the use of non-deadly and deadly force which establishes protocols to be followed in specific instances.  A written incident report is required in the situations listed below:

 “1. When a firearm is discharged outside the firing range except when discharged to destroy an animal in accordance with section 13.2(b)(1) of this policy or off duty situations such as hunting or shooting competitions.
 
 2. When a use of force results in death or injury.

 3. When a nonlethal weapon (i.e impact weapon, OPN, OC, baton, etc.) is used on a person. 

 4. When injury results from the use of empty hand techniques (i.e. joint locks).

 5. Handcuffing should be reported only when it results in complaints of/or an actual injury of a prisoner.  Complaint handcuffing and escort do not need to be reported on a separate Use-of-Force Form.

B. A supervisor will be immediately summoned to the scene and will comply with investigative procedures as required by the department in the following situations:

 1. When a firearm is discharged outside of the firing range except when discharged to destroy and animal in accordance with section 13.2(b)(1) of this policy or off duty situations such as hunting or shooting competitions.

 2. When a use of force results in death or injury.

 3. When a subject complains that and injury has been inflicted.

 4. When misconduct is alleged or suspected.

C. Submit all reports of use of force through the chain of command to the division commander.

D. Depending on the incident, the division commander or sheriff may refer the incident for an administrative investigation of the incident.  

In the event deadly force is utilized, then:
 
 1. Immediately or as soon as possible arrange for medical aid.  Secure the scene and notify the immediate supervisor, sheriff, division captain, department legal advisor, and county attorney.

 2. Where a police officer’s use of force causes death, the officer shall be placed on administrative leave after completing all internal investigative requirements, and until it is determined by a mental health professional that the police officer is ready to return to duty.

  The department shall conduct an administrative investigation of the incident.  A criminal investigation will be conducted by DCI.

B. Administrative review of critical incidents:

 All reported use of force will be reviewed by the division commander.

If appropriate, reported use of force will be investigated by an investigator assigned by the appropriate division commander to determine wether the use of force: was reasonable and compiled with department policy and procedure.  A review will be done to determine wether the relevant policy was clearly understandable and effective to address the situation.  Department training will also be reviewed to determine if currently adequate.

  All findings of policy violations or training inadequacies shall be reported to the appropriate division commander for resolution and/or discipline.

 All use of force incident reports shall be retained as required by state law.

  There will be a regular review of force incidents by appropriate division commander to ascertain training and policy needs.”

The County Attorney’s Office was able to determine and identify five incidents of alleged misuse of force asserted by Mr. Lauck: 

  1.  Gillette Police Department incident involving a shooting where suspect was killed in the late 1990's. 

 2.  Gillette Police Department incident where suspect was shot in the wrist in 1998.  

 3.  Sheriff’s Department incident involving a shooting where suspect was killed in 2003.   
  4.  Allegation of misuse of Sheriff’s Office canine in incident involving suspect being bit by the canine in 2002.  

 5.  Shooting at vehicle by a deputy in 2004. 

Upon review of these incidents, it appears that the appropriate internal review was conducted by the law enforcement agency involved regarding those incidents listed above.  In addition, for those cases involving deadly force, an independent review panel was utilized and reviewed the reports, as well as the County Attorney’s Office to make a determination if the deputies/officers actions were justified or if criminal charges are warranted.  Based on those reviews, all entities concluded that the deputy/officer utilized appropriate force and that deputy/officers’ actions were justified.   As to any administrative sanctions imposed of the deputies/officers involved in these incidences, the County Attorney’s Office is unaware of those as they are personnel issues and those files are maintained at the Sheriff’s Department. 

2.  Failure to Protect Bryce Chavers.  During a portion of time during the pendency of the sexual assault prosecution involving Kent Proffit, Sr., Bryce Chavers was placed on a “hot sheet” maintained at the Campbell County Sheriff’s Department. A “hot sheet” is a designation by a law enforcement agency of a particular individual or location to be more actively monitored by law enforcement.  Although Bryce Chavers was not on the active “hot sheet” on the night of his death, deputies were actively patrolling that area as a result of others listed on the “hot sheet” in the area.   In fact, Deputy Dave Lauck was the deputy assigned to the district that contained the Chavers’ residence and had been patrolling in that area on that evening.  Patrols on locations listed on the “hot sheet” are conducted routinely and observations made if anything appears to be suspicious. On the night in question, it appears the Sheriff’s Department had been in the area and were aware of the prior “hot sheet” listing for the Chavers residence. 

3.   Racism/Racial Slurs and Anti-Gay Sentiments.  As referenced in several areas of the packet of information submitted by Mr. Lauck, he alleges that improper racial comments have been made by officers while working at the Campbell County Sheriff’s Department. Much of the information referenced by Mr. Lauck is documented in the recordings that he has provided to the County Attorney’s Office.  Upon review of those recordings, it appears that there were a number of occasions where racial statements were made and, on at least one occasion, anti-gay sentiments expressed.  Upon reviewing the recordings, it was difficult to have a clear understanding of the content or context of those statements, as many of the recordings are difficult to hear, the recordings are limited in duration, and the voices muffled or garbled.  Furthermore, given that limited nature of the recordings, it is difficult, if not impossible, to discern if Mr. Lauck played any role in the response or statements the deputy made.

Sheriff Pownall, nor any member of his administration, has received a complaint alleging racial discrimination, or of racially motivated behavior from a citizen or an employee of the department.  Any such complaint or allegation would have been investigated pursuant to the Sheriff’s Office policies.  My understanding is that Lieutenant Eric Seeman oversees such complaints.     

Lauck asserts in the civil lawsuit that he “refused to lie about my co-workers racial...behaviors” and that he was purportedly harassed for that refusal.  In order for a charging party to show unlawful harassment they must show that: (1) was unwelcome offensive race based conduct; and (2) the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment.  In his charge, Lauck points to no specific instances of racially motivated, undesirable or offensive conduct, unwelcome or otherwise.  Harassment must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, by looking at all the circumstances and the context.  Given Lauck’s broad allegations it is impossible to determine the circumstances or the context of the alleged discriminatory conduct.  There is not one documented instance wherein Lauck complained either verbally or in writing to his shift supervisors, other supervisors within the department, the Division Captain, the Undersheriff, the Sheriff, the Legal Advisor or the county’s Human Resource Department of racial discrimination or racially motivated behavior.  In the civil lawsuit, the Campbell County Sheriff’s Office denied that it failed to provide a work environment free of racial harassment.

Although I personally do not agree with the use of racial statements, the mere utterance of those statements do not constitute a criminal offense.  Additionally, there does not appear to be any indication of misuse of force against others as a result of their race.  I am unaware of what, if any, administrative sanctions may have been imposed by past or present administrations of the Sheriff’s Department towards those who made those statements.  Any inquiry as to administrative sanctions towards these individuals would need to be referred to the Campbell County Sheriff’s Department as my inquiry into this matter has been limited to whether or not a criminal violation occurred.  

4.  Misconduct by Campbell County Sheriff’s Department Employees.    Lauck alleges that employees sleep on duty, have inattention to duty, read or play cards on duty, falsify cell check logs, etc.  The allegations contained under the heading are personnel issues, not criminal in nature, and would be handled administratively at the Sheriff’s Department.  No reports, nor complaints, have been received by the County Attorney’s Office alleging any criminal wrongdoing in this area.

5.  Supervision of employees by other family members.  In the information submitted by Mr. Lauck he references supervisory issues that he maintains exist at the Campbell County Sheriff’s Department due to the fact that several members of the same family are employed by that agency, including the Seeman family and Paul Pownall and William Pownall.   

The Sheriff’s Department is divided into three divisions - operations, administration and detention.  Each division has a supervising captain or lieutenant.  The operations division is made up of patrol, investigations, the town of Wright, communications and animal control.  Patrol is divided into three rotating shifts.  Each shift has a shift sergeant and at least one corporal that act as shift supervisors.   

Roy, Eric and Tony Seeman are siblings.  William Pownall is the uncle of Paul Pownall.  In regards to the hierarchy supervision as it pertains to the Seeman and Pownall families, it is the County Attorney’s Office’s understanding that currently Tony Seeman’s second level supervisor is Roy Seeman.  Roy Seeman provides some supervision of Eric Seeman.  In relation to Paul Pownall and William Pownall, William Pownall is the ultimate supervisor for Paul, however, not his immediate supervisor. 

For purposes of Campbell County’s personnel policy “immediate family” includes employee spouse, parents, siblings, children, grandparents, grandchildren or members of the employees household. 

Campbell County’s personnel policy on employment of family members provides as follows:

 “A member of an employee’s immediate family will be considered for employment by the County, provided the applicant possesses all the qualifications for employment.  An immediate family member may not be hired, however, if such employment would:

 (a) Create either a direct or indirect supervisor/subordinate relationship with a family member; or

 (b) Create either an actual conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest, as determined by the agency administrator.  These criteria will also be considered when assigning, transferring, or promoting an employee.

 Employees who marry or become members of the same household may continue employment as long as there is not:

 (a) A direct or indirect supervisor/subordinate relationship between such employees; or

 (b) An actual conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest, as determined by the agency administrator.  Should one of the above situations occur, the County will attempt to find a suitable position within the organization to which one fo the affected employees may transfer.  If accommodations of this nature are not feasible, the employees will be permitted to determine which of them will resign, either through a mutually agreed upon decision or, if no other choice is available, a flip of the coin.”

 An elected official is an autonomous position and entrusted and given broad authority.  In that discretion, and as it relates to this issue, an elected official can chose whether or not to adopt or follow the county policy regarding employment of family members.  

 It is the County Attorney's Office opinion that the current command structure at the Campbell County Sheriff’s Department violates the County’s policy on employment of family members and supervision.  However, as an elected official, Sheriff Pownall has the discretion to chose whether or not to adopt or follow the county policy regarding employment of family members.   As such, even as a violation of the County’s personnel policy, the Sheriff, as an independent elected official, has the authority to either adopt or follow that policy, as he so chooses.  The County's HR Department's opinion may differ from that of the County Attorney's Office in relation to whether the current command structure violates the County's policy.  In either event, both the County Attorney's Office and the HR Department believe that an elected official has the discretion to adopt or follow the policy, as they so choose. 

 In evaluating this matter as to whether there has been a violation of Wyoming’s nepotism statute, the statute reads as follows: (a) no public official, public member or public employee shall advocate or cause the employment, appointment, transfer or advancement of a family member to an office or position of the state, a county, municipality or a school district.  A public official, public member or public employee shall not supervise or manage a family member who is in an office or position of the state, a county, municipality or school district.  (b) A public official, public member or public employee, acting in his official capacity, shall not participate in his official responsibility or capacity regarding a matter relating to the employment or discipline of a family member.

Under Wyoming statute, William Pownall as an elected officer meets the definition of a “public official.”  Family member under this statute is defined as a “spouse, parent, sibling, child, grandparent, or grandchild or is a member of the individual’s household.”  Under this definition Paul Pownall, as a nephew, does not meet this definition.  Thus, there is no criminal violation by Sheriff Pownall under the nepotism statute as a result of a supervisory role over Paul Pownall.   No other employee at the Sheriff’s Department meets the definition of “public official” and as such, the nepotism criminal statute does not apply to them. 

6.  Mr. Lauck’s employment/ “termination” at the Campbell County Sheriff’s Department.

The issues surrounding Mr. Lauck’s employment at the Campbell County Sheriff’s Department were litigated in a federal civil suit initiated by Mr Lauck.  The Court granted a motion for summary judgment and found no cause of action against Campbell County, the Campbell County Sheriff’s Department or Sheriff Pownall.  An appeal is pending.  As a result, the County Attorney’s Office is unable to make any additional comments regarding this issue.

I hope this memorandum covers the primary concerns expressed by Mr. Lauck.  In the event someone believes the County Attorney’s Office has missed an issue of importance as it relates to potential criminal violations or misconduct, please do not hesitate to contact us so that we can explore that issue.

cc: Governor Dave Freudenthal
 DCI Director Forest Bright
 Attorney General Bruce Salzburg
 Campbell County Commissioners
 Sheriff William Pownall
 Mr. Dave Lauck
 Gillette News-Record
 Basin Radio