This afternoon, Campbell County Sheriff candidate Dave Lauck issued a response to the memorandums released this morning from Campbell County Attorney Jeani Stone’s office.

Earlier today, the Campbell County Attorney’s Office released a statement explaining the nature of the independent review conducted to address Lauck’s accusations against the Campbell County Sheriff’s Office. 

In that same story, the memorandum issued by the party conducting the independent review at the request of the Campbell County Attorney’s Office was displayed in its entirety.  According to that report, the third party investigator, Michael A. Blonigen, concluded his findings by saying, “In conclusion, I do not believe that further criminal prosecution or investigation is warranted in this case.”

To offer the complete story, Dave Lauck’s response to this morning’s announcement is shown below in its entirety.

Dave Lauck's response:

Ms. Stone                                                                           

Michael Blonigen’s  report of July 27, 2010 is incomplete and misleading. Mr. Blonigen indicates he conducted an “independent  review” of issues related to CCSO. Mr. Blonigen fails to disclose that, rather than being an independent investigator, he was  previously used by local law enforcement to get  another 'no prosecution' decision. The conduct of local officials going to a specific attorney to get the 'no prosecution' finding they want was previously predicted by a senior attorney from the county attorney's office. 

We would like to know if Mr. Blonigen contacted CCSO's Casper attorney related to his report, as  Dave Lauck's attorney, nor Dave were contacted by Mr. Blonigen. Blonigen inaccurately reports  a  lawsuit as having “failed”, when the truth is that the lawsuit in question is slated for court argument in September, 2010.

In any event, Ms. Stone, your continued determination to avoid doing the right thing is very concerning. We took you at your word that you were seeking fair and objective investigation, then you went to Mr. Blonigen for your finding.

In 2007-2008 you were aware, or should have been aware that four top officers from CCSO testified under oath, on video, and in contradiction of recorded evidence, yet you took no known action.

In 2009 another senior supervisor from CCSO testified in contradiction to recorded evidence, in deposition, in the conference room in your own County Attorney's office. In 2009 you were provided with text and recorded conversation about the matters, but took no known proper action.

In 2010 the officers for honesty website allowed the public to have a glimpse at what has been going on in Campbell County, and mentioned you had taken no known proper action. It also mentioned that you and Sheriff Pownall requested your own tax payer paid salaries be boosted to the maximum amount. The citizens of Campbell County began discussing the conduct of local officials, you became opposed in the 2010 County Attorney election, and you were prompted to issue a statement.

Your statement of 7-20-10 indicated you determined that racial statements were made,  an anti-gay statement was made, and CCSO was violating the county policy on employment of family members and supervision. However, in your 8 page memo you failed to address key points of public concern, such as;

Did top officers at CCSO commit perjury when they testified under oath in contradiction of recorded evidence?

Did Sheriff Pownall violate the Wyoming nepotism statute when he hired his own son for a preferred position at CCSO ?

What you were going to do about the admitted machine gun violations by Sheriff Pownall, as well as gun give back issues to a drug involved person, and a person with mental problems.

You failed to address why an outside investigation was not called for when the sheriff's nephew opened fire on a vehicle operated by a teenage driver, why there was no video of the incident per policy, how the report on the matter became enhanced at a later time, and Bill Pownall's own statement indicating he would erase evidence. As you probably know, in 7-2010 the Sheriff has refused to comment on the matter on one occasion, and minimized it on another occasion by saying only a 'shot' was fired, when there were five shots fired from both the nephew's handgun and shotgun. What if it would have been your child who was endangered Ms. Stone. Would you want it covered up?

Ms. Stone, we took you at your word when you indicated in your 7-21-10 memo that you would call for independent review to assure fairness, accuracy, and objectivity. However, you then promptly contacted Michael Blonigen to conduct the review, even though you knew or should have known, that Mr. Blonigen had previously conducted an incomplete investigation related to Dave Lauck in the past. As the County Attorney of Campbell County you know that even basic investigations require that the reporting party in any event needs to be interviewed for his side of the story. Dave Lauck was not contacted for his side of the story by Mr. Blonigen in the past before a conclusion was issued, and Mr . Lauck was not contacted for his side of the story by Mr. Blonigen in this 7-2010 matter. In other words, you allowed a repeat of another incomplete investigation to get the findings you desired in order to dismiss matters of serious public concern in Campbell County.

In Mr. Blonigen's 7-27-10 letter, he indicates the motivation for Dave Lauck recording at CCSO was unknown. Dave Lauck had already issued a multi page statement about what caused the  recordings to be made. To summarize the statement, when Lauck reported misconduct in local law enforcement through the routine chain of command, it was whitewashed because there were no recordings. Had Mr. Blonigen conducted even basic investigation, he would have known this.

Mr. Blonigen moves forward in his statement with efforts to discredit Dave Lauck. This is a strong indication that Mr. Blonigen is not objective, but he is predictable. The tactic of attempting to discredit an officer who breaks the police code of silence, and confronts misconduct is well known. People who study such matters are well aware that officers who speak out become targets of retaliation. Please refer to Dr. Neal Trautman's opinion ( from the National Institute of Ethics ) about conduct under the Pownall administration having been “disgraceful”, and conduct against Lauck to have been a combined effort after Lauck confronted matters of concern at CCSO. In fact Dr. Trautman indicates conduct under the Pownall administration has been the worst he has seen in his 18 years of studying such problems on a national basis.

Mr. Blonigen reached as far back as the 1980s to claim there were “black marks” in Dave Lauck's police career. He was referring to the 1980s Grand Jury investigation here in Campbell County, and called it a “legal disaster”.  Mr Blonigen's false claim needs to be addressed. Dave Lauck was hired to conduct felony investigations in Campbell County in the 1980s. By the News Record's own report of the investigation, Lauck compiled approximately 232 felony cases in a matter of months. That is a strong indication of how bad criminal activity is in Campbell County, and indicated the GJ investigation was the most effective round up of drug dealers in known Campbell County history. Out of all these cases, and many more compiled by Dave Lauck over his years of dedicated service, he has maintained a 100% felony conviction rate with the exception of one case. You should recall the one case, as it was the Campbell County Attorney's office who assigned a rookie prosecutor to the case. The deputy county attorney could not even pronounce the name of the involved drug being distributed. Even though the case was among the strongest of the entire Grand Jury investigation, it was fumbled by the CCCA's office. Furthermore, it was the decision of the CCCA office to utilize Grand Jury proceedings during this investigation. If the decision to use Grand Jury proceedings was a “black mark” in the history of Campbell County, it was certainly not the fault of professional front line investigator Dave Lauck, as he had nothing to do with the decision to use GJ proceedings..

Mr. Blonigen also brings to light a bar fight situation where Dave Lauck intervened between a known excessive force officer and an arrestee. Lauck intervened with the level of force previously instructed by his supervisor, pepper spray. Mr. Blonigen's claims are again inaccurate, as he does not even have the year of the incident correct. Lauck had reported the excessive force officer as far back as 1991 for aiming a loaded rifle at the head of a handcuffed prisoner, yet nothing was done about it. If the matter would have been handled properly, the officer would not have been in position to later shoot and kill two citizens, and knock the eyeball out of a third in three separate incidents.  Now that the citizens have been able to hear audio recordings of the officer talking and laughing about shooting people, the citizens will know Dave Lauck did the right thing by intervening in the bar fight situation where the same officer was yanking the hair of the arrestee and jabbing him in the neck. The report about Lauck's conduct by the officer was clearly a false, even in the opinion of the a Deputy County Attorney of the time. Mr. Blonigen's claim that there was no evidence in the matter is false. There were witnesses, the false written report, and video / audio of the situation which prove the written report to contain false statements.

Mr. Blonigen's insinuation that Dave Lauck is an excessive force officer is false. Dave Lauck has been a front line officer for approximately 27 years, has been involved in hundreds of arrests, yet has never been given a single day off as disciplinary action for any event, including misuse of force. Please keep in mind that the person you are trying to discredit has a long history as a professional officer, including many written statements commending his honesty and performance from officials in Campbell County, including the county attorney's office.   Ms. Stone you should explain to the citizens of Campbell County how Dave Lauck acquired over 500 letters and notations commending his work over the years, and how Lauck was rated as the most qualified officer at CCSO, then explain why you now publish false information in an effort to discredit him.

Ms. Stone, since you have released Mr Blonigen's inaccurate statements to the press and public, it is your responsibility to take corrective action related to the damage incurred by Mr. Lauck. 

Mr. Blonigen's indication that Bill Pownall's  firearms violations were federal in nature was known information before you ever chose him to review these matters. You should have personally insisted on ATF investigation in order to assure public confidence.

Mr. Blonigen's attempt to minimize the issue of racism and perjury is not objective or reasonable. Multiple officers clearly tried to deny or minimize the racism expressed at CCSO. Whether the expressions themselves are a violation of law is not the primary point. The primary point is that when multiple officers are willing to deny under oath the racism expressed at CCSO, we have a severe violation of public trust, and potentially state statute. Had Mr Blonigen properly investigated this issue, he would have learned that Lauck had reportedly reported the CCSO racism problem as far back as 1987 related to officers failing to properly search for a kidnap / homicide victim due to American Indians being involved. Again in the 1990-1991 era, before any recording by Lauck began, Dave Lauck reported coming into CCSO and witnessing the verbal abuse of minority child by senior CCSO officers. We ask you, if your child was being abused by officers, would you want an officer to speak up, or remain silent?

Other officers are also well aware of racist issues at CCSO. As recent as 2009 testimony was given indicating Lauck was a person CCSO wanted  off shift because he was addressing such misconduct.

Ms. Stone, the citizens have now seen Sheriff Pownall testify under oath on video, and deny or minimize the racism problem at CCSO. They were then able to hear multiple expressions of racism from officers and Bill Pownall himself. Is it now your position you are going to tolerate this dishonesty from your local officers ? How will you prosecute future cases now that there is known under oath  dishonesty from top CCSO officers ?

Your own findings indicated CCSO is operating outside county policy related to employment and supervision of family members. Mr. Blonigen's findings that Sheriff Pownall did violate the Wyoming state nepotism statute has also put that issue back in your court.

I refer you to the local front page news article of 7-29-10 where your own chief deputy county attorney requested jail time for a cemetery employee because she held a position of public trust when she violated the law. Being the sheriff of Campbell County is certainly a position of public trust. Trying to defer your personal responsibility to an out of town attorney is simply passing the buck. The is not a matter where Dave Lauck is a primary witness. Research the pay records for CCSO, and the jail staff for information to confirm or deny the issue at hand.

You know that claiming these issues are election year politics is wrong. The top officers at CCSO testified in contradiction to recorded evidence at least as far back as 2007. The recorded evidence was turned over in the 2007-2008 era. Your office was updated again in 2009. For you to do nothing with this information until 2010, then allow it to be brushed off as local politics is a disservice to the citizens of Campbell County. 

We are again asking you to request true independent investigation in these matters for an objective determination. Your conduct of getting an clearly biased and incomplete investigation by Mr. Blonigen  is simply unacceptable conduct on your part. Citizens supporting Dave Lauck for sheriff want honest reform in Campbell County. Your final decision on obtaining objective review will cause you to be viewed as part of the solution, or part of the problem. We await your decision.