OpenCdA highly recommends that you read Idaho Statesman reporter Cynthia Sewell’s article headlined Officers allege interference, retaliation at Idaho State Police after crash probe.
Briefly, lawsuits have been filed against the ISP by some former and present ISP officers who allege they were ordered to change accident reports to protect a Payette County deputy sheriff. They further allege that they were retaliated against by members of the ISP command staff when they refused to change the reports.
If you’re going to read Sewell’s article, we also suggest you read the sidebar hyperlinks in “Other Related Content.” Most of those hyperlinks are court filings, however they are merely allegations and observations, not conclusive evidence. The allegations would have to be supported by evidence at trial.
The public wants to believe our law enforcement officers are honest and that their investigations will be objective, factual, and complete. In this particular case, the ISP investigators assigned some degree of fault for the accident to the Payette County deputy. The documents linked in Sewell’s article suggest that the ISP command staff may have encouraged subordinate investigators to slant the reports to avoid the deputy’s being criminally prosecuted. For example, ISP Deputy Director Lieutenant Colonel Kedrick Wills allegedly told one of the investigators who had assigned fault to the deputy that “… he could not believe ISP was going to send a deputy to prison.” (If Wills’ name sounds familiar, it might be because his father, Richard Wills, is an Idaho state legislator and retired ISP Corporal.)
We hope the Idaho Statesman continues its excellent reporting on a matter of statewide interest.
Good post, Bill. Yes, I read the article yesterday and also thought the Statesman offered very detailed information. I wonder if there are additional facts that ISP thinks would give a different view to this tragedy? It seems reasonable to me that the blood alcohol level of the other driver should have been included in the report. Do you Bill?
Comment by mary — June 1, 2015 @ 2:57 pm
It is interesting that the reporter referenced the Ellington ‘road rage’ case in Kootenai County. The news reports in that case indicated that during the first Ellington trial the ISP accident reconstructionist gave testimony that conflicted with statements on accident reconstruction that he had made in previous court cases and contradicted training materials the reconstructionist had personally prepared. The statement: “ISP staff ordering that all draft crash reports be destroyed, and in the future, draft crash reports not be kept in the official case file” is disturbing. Does this in essence mean that a final report is now, and perhaps in the past, a ‘slanted’ version of an incident?
Finally, perhaps the most surprising aspect of your post is the absence of a closing statement you have previously posted: “Welcome to Idaho: Esto perpetua corruptam”.
Comment by Tributary — June 1, 2015 @ 5:51 pm
Mary,
It seems to me that the Gem County prosecutor had that information and probably much morein the Coroner’s PMI report. See Rice’s First Amended and Verified Complaint at page 4, items h. and i. It also seems to me that the medical examiner who performed the PMI would be more professionally capable than the Troopers of interpreting those raw numbers and how they would have affected the deceased’s driving behavior in the context of other factors such as the deceased’s overall medical condition.
If I were the prosecutor, I would want all the laboratory information interpreted for me by the most qualified persons available before making a charging decision in a homicide. Presumptive BAC test results may be sufficient for misdemeanor DUI’s where no one has been hurt, but this case was far more serious than a DUI.
Comment by Bill — June 1, 2015 @ 7:52 pm
Tributary,
Rice was the reconstructionist in the Ellington case. As I recall he had made prior statements inconsistent with his testimony in Ellington, and that would certainly impeach his credibility as a witness. However, even after reading the comments of the Black Robed Boys of Boise, I still didn’t see conclusive evidence of perjury. And the documents attached to Sewell’s Statesman article didn’t explicitly state that Rice was Brady DOA, only that Rice had been visited by the ISP’s Grand Imperial Wizard who made the comments in the statement. I believe there was even disagreement among the ISP Command Staff about whether Brady was even applicable to some of the information. When the folks on mahogany row can’t even agree on something as well defined as Brady, it seems pretty unfair to expect a snuffy to be more knowledgeable.
I’m not an accident reconstruction specialist, but to whatever extent they are expected to draw conclusions based on their specialized training and experience, it seems logical that the specialists could reasonably disagree on the interpretation of some of the information they develop. However, when the Command Staff poobahs (who are probably not now and may never have been specialists) start applying political spin to the interpretation of evidence outside their area of knowledge, somebody needs to crack their cubes. Of course, we all know what flows downhill.
Comment by Bill — June 1, 2015 @ 8:10 pm
Don’t hold back Bill – When can I start commenting on Duane’s new tower? Should I start with his donation to the Boys and Girls Club which was just coincidentally announced earlier this week, or should I wait for a go?
I did find that after McKuen was finished, and after the City essentially gave Duane Front St. and Second Ave. the property valuation on the Resort was reduced by $400K. So much for $20M in adjacent park improvements and a couple of free roads increasing property values downtown.
But I will bite my lip until I see a by-line. May I suggest, “Even Prisoners Need a View” or, “Come Hell or High Water My Garden Will be Built” (As was rejected by the City a decade ago), or perhaps, “Yeah, the Artist Rendering is Correct, it is a Little Crooked.”
Still biting my lip here Bill.
Comment by Old Dog — June 3, 2015 @ 10:05 pm
Old Dog,
Don’t bite your lip.
And now everyone knows why the McEuen Parking Garage (what we correctly called “Son of River Park Square”) was sited where it was.
Comment by Bill — June 4, 2015 @ 7:11 am
Old Dog,
I guess it was to be expected, the mayor has endorsed the project and doesn’t feel he has a conflict of interest even though his wife and he own a shop in the ‘plaza’ shops.
What surprised me is that gookin has endorsed the project. Sheez.
Comment by Tributary — June 5, 2015 @ 8:08 am
Yes, this is all very maddening and disappointing. Don’t forget the attempted and now on hiatus, capture of the Independence Point parking lot. And, to think we may get Dan English back in the mix while Dan Gookin appears to be folding is a valid concern. Never thought it would get this bad, and I have never wanted to sign my name more, against anything in my life but to stop this monstrosity and complete mockery of the people. Now, our city beach will become Hagadrones’s own private vomitorium, but the liability will be the cities. It is just great that all of our city officials have enough money to get away from this circus when they want. Officials will act like they are so generous in raising pathetic wages by a lousy buck only so they can recruit their labor from organizations that our city supports in order to further private agendas. I think Larry Spencer needs to print some more Corrup t’ Alene bumper stickers.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 5, 2015 @ 1:00 pm
Tributary,
Given the insistence of the Idaho Legislature to narrowly define an impermissible conflict of interest with everything short of bribery as okay, given Widmyer’s history, and and given his continuing financial affiliations with principals in the Hagadone Corporation, I’d certainly question both his ability and his willingness to make mayoral decisions in the best interests of all his constituents. Mayor Widmyer may well be called upon to vote to break a tie on some Council vote in a matter where he will have to decide which master he serves. In my view, there’s absolutely no doubt what the outcome of that would be.
Comment by Bill — June 5, 2015 @ 4:49 pm
So, now the Chamber is in trouble on its mortgage? Hagadone is holding a fund raiser at his ‘estate’ on the lake. He may as well bring out the wrecking ball and get started on the expansion of the resort now. Why wait?
Comment by Tributary — June 6, 2015 @ 12:19 pm
Is Tributary serious about comment #10, or am I missing an inside joke?
Comment by Stebbijo — June 6, 2015 @ 5:07 pm
Stebbijo,
He’s quite serious. Here’s a link to the article from today’s skews paper.
If you look at the Chamber’s 2015 Executive Committee, you’ll see two obvious Haga-Stooges on it — Jaeger and Thompson. Look at the Board of Directors and you’ll see such stalwarts (or stale-warts) as Dustin Ainsworth, Mark Browning, Helo Hancock (just why is the Tribe represented on the C of C B of D?), Peter Riggs, and Troy Tymesen.
And Haga-Hangers-On include Mayor Steve Widmyer and LCDC snoozer Deanna Goodlander.
Maybe the Chamber of Commerce should move out of the high-rent district and eastbound on Sherman Avenue. Its business model is more consistent with flophouse motels.
The question is, why would any local business belong to the Coeur d’Alene Chamber of Commerce? If the Chamber can’t manage its own business affairs, how much confidence can anyone have in whatever advice it might offer or assurances it might give to businesses considering starting up in Coeur d’Alene? If I were wanting to start a business, I’d rather look at Post Falls or Rathdrum.
Comment by Bill — June 6, 2015 @ 8:46 pm
If I were a business owner, I would want to audit their books … what the “H” are they doing with their money? Oh, wait a minute, I cannot do that in this town or I may not have a business. However, it is a nice building with nice art work. Hagadone Corporation probably wants that space too. Move them all into the library or the Kroc Center for their meetings and house their inquiries in a travel trailer somewhere. Geesh … what a very real but sad joke.
“The campaign will kick off July 29 with “Celebration in the Gardens,” a special evening event sponsored by Duane and Lola Hagadone that will take place at their lakeside estate.”
Gad, is this formal extortion? I suppose we won’t be seeing those list of givers?
Tributary is right, just get it over with and continue with the ruin because we we are fastly becoming a muck of more crappy water, crappy air, crappy traffic, and a haven for more crime and graffiti, higher taxes and utility bills. Might as well build the new prison while he is at it and rename the town after his flowers … If people want to live in the city, they need to move to Anaheim CA, Cincinnati NY, Seattle WA or New York NY. Do not move here and better yet, vacation in the Bahamas somewhere. This area has way too much bird poop in the water and it will ruin your vacation and make you ill. People that want to destroy this area need to stay or move to the Palm Desert of California and quit sucking North Idaho dry. I hear that is where the next big boon on mining will be – a seriously HUGE gold rush. Hurry now, move quick! They are in need of everything!
Comment by Stebbijo — June 6, 2015 @ 9:47 pm
Okay, move to Cincinnati OH instead Cincinnati NY … but I highly recommend the Palm Desert CA area! There are lots and lots of jobs!
Comment by Stebbijo — June 6, 2015 @ 9:52 pm
It is a late night, but while surfing I found this interesting and old article from 2007 – with reporter quotes as, “With Benson dissenting, contending they were being “blackmailed,” the council voted 3-to-1 to issue the additional permits.”
This is a quite the article concerning the construction of the the Palm Desert – Hagadone structure.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 6, 2015 @ 10:56 pm
I see my name mentioned.
The H Corp. can, by right, build a tower on top of the Resort Shops. That’s been known for quite a while. You can thank the increased heights downtown for that, a decision made before I was on Council. And when I brought up looking at the height restrictions during the One Lakeside issue, no one else on Council expressed an interest.
The issue coming before us is the street vacation, which is a public hearing. I would encourage people to attend the hearing and express your concerns.
Comment by Dan Gookin — June 8, 2015 @ 9:59 pm
Dan,
What are the applicable Idaho statutes controlling the city’s vacating a public street? I assume Idaho Code §50-311, but there are probably others that would help people prepare to testify.
Comment by Bill — June 9, 2015 @ 7:20 am
So gookin,
Let H Corp do what it already can. Just because they can take a mile–don’t give them two (e.g. public property–at least more than they have already been given).
The downtown is tourist haven, for the tourists (e.g. the H Corp). The ‘locals’ don’t go there regularly and they certainly do not profit from it. Testify? Do you seriously believe that you or any other council member will have his/her vote changed by testimony. Public input comes equally from blogs like this and discussions on the street. I seem to recall there was quite a bit of ‘testimony’ on McEuen Park–that did not change anything. The train had left the station and now the same will be true.
Comment by Tributary — June 9, 2015 @ 8:59 am
Bill: I’m not sure what the options are. As far as I’m concerned, vacation is only one, so I’m eager to find out why staff chose that option over air rights (for example).
I can’t speak for the others, but I’ll listen to people. Remember, if no one shows up, the Council assumes people are okay with it.
As far as blogs go: I have no idea who you are, which makes it easy to negate your input. I do gauge a certain demeanor from your using my last name in lowercase, so I weigh your opinions accordingly.
Comment by Dan Gookin — June 9, 2015 @ 4:19 pm
Dan,
Thank you.
My question wasn’t so much one to identify options other than vacation as to find out what Idaho statutes (other than Idaho Code § 50-311) people could read to better understand the vacation process accessible to Idaho municipalities. For example, I’m sure readers would like to know what kind(s) of compensation the city can demand in return, what kind of conditions can the city impose in addition to compensation, how can the city’s residents be sure the city will get consideration of equal or better value in return for vacation?
Comment by Bill — June 9, 2015 @ 4:33 pm
Bill, those are exactly my concerns as well.
Comment by Dan Gookin — June 9, 2015 @ 5:51 pm
Duane Hagadone does not “show up” either … does the city council “assume” that the “Big H” just wants it all because he sends his paid mouthpiece and if nobody else “shows up” it is because they don’t care? Well, of course that is how it works. I can only assume that Duane Hagadone does not have to “show up” because he has more money, works harder, and values his family time more and our elected officials do not require his presence. We are not “okay” with it, we just cannot compete with what/who has already won. We may not “show up”, but we are not stupid.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 9, 2015 @ 8:20 pm
Now that is just too funny. Apparently Mr. Gookin determines which information to take into consideration based upon the name of the person providing it. Since ‘Big H’/Barlow is the applicant, we know, based on that alone, that the train has left the station.
Comment by Tributary — June 10, 2015 @ 11:45 am
The only request on the table is vacation of a public right-of-way. I’m of the opinion that the artistic rendering for the new tower is a bait and switch because there is no formal proposal to build and that the “new” tower makes absolutely no sense. The real money is to jump Sherman north so that views will face the Lake.
Ever wonder why Bonsai Bistro and the Chamber buildings both look like really thick foundation walls? Last I heard there was only one hold-out for Hagadone owning the entire block directly north of the Resort, and he does own (or control via intermediaries) the Chamber of Commerce block.
Could very well be now that finally all the “stars” are lined-up, i.e., right people in the right places so that Duane’s Memorial Garden Plaza is coming to a head, just in bits and pieces. And quite frankly, I liked his conceptual plan from a purely design aspect, but…
Who will pay for it, how do they plan on paying for it, under whose direction will it get reviewed, negotiated, and approved, over how long amount of time, and again, who will pay relative to who will benefit? These are some of the real questions that should be contemplated before wholesaling off public land.
I thought I read somewhere the estimated value for 2nd and Front that Duane wants vacated was $157K. If that’s even close – REALLY? Even crap (yes,a technical word) property outside city limits in any mediocre resort community without full infrastructure is being advertised at over a million ($)an acre all over north Idaho. I recently worked on a deal on a (ghetto)commercially zoned property and they turned down $1.2 million per acre, which did not include the $300K to demolish the mold infested or otherwise non-conforming buildings.
Ultimately, I think it a sad state of affairs that the City just spent so much time and money purchasing encumbered property, some of which isn’t even in the City, (another old mill site)whereas, they seem lackadaisical to leverage the sale of the most prime commercial real estate of which they already own – and have a very captive buyer.
Comment by Old Dog — June 11, 2015 @ 10:11 pm
Old Dog,
I hope the lone hold-out you mentioned isn’t named Susette Kelo.
As for the Mayor and City Council getting top dollar (or any dollar for that matter) to sell prime commercial real estate to the Haga-Corp: I can envision the late President Theodore Roosevelt’s ghost standing alongside Hagadone while they look down upon Coeur d’Alene’s mayor and council. Roosevelt’s spirit would have one hand on Hagadone’s shoulder, congratulating him, and saying with a laugh, “When you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”
Comment by Bill — June 12, 2015 @ 6:48 am
Thanks guys for cluing me in on Susette Kelo. Unbelievable, but not really.
So, I can assume that elected officials in this area will ‘provably’ do anything for the “developer” because they essentially have no purpose. We know that the job really does not pay all that much. Obviously, the fringe benefits whatever they may be, must keep them in the game.
“In a 2009 New York Times article, the trials and tribulations of private property homeowners in New London, Connecticut were highlighted, including those of lead plaintiff Susette Kelo. If you can reach back through the mountains of information overload you have suffered since 2005, you will recall “[i]n a 5-to-4 decision, the [U.S. Supreme Court] ruled that it was permissible to take private property and turn it over to developers as part of a plan to bolster the local economy.” – See more at: http://macomberlaw.com/private-property-v-government-vigilance-required/#sthash.5E4UeyTU.dpuf”
Yes, this is the preferred legal recourse as in legal encroachment, brought to us by developers who own elected officials. Duh!
BTW, I hear that Coeur d’Alene, Idaho has a horrific problem with bedbugs.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 12, 2015 @ 10:28 pm
Stebbijo,
Thanks for the link to Art Macomber’s article. I had not seen it until now.
When the Idaho Legislature adopted I.C. § 50-2007 in 1965, it gave an economic thermonuclear device — eminent domain — to unelected officials who, at least in Coeur d’Alene, have demonstrated a complete and willful disregard for the reason Idaho Code Title 50, Chapter 20 was adopted in the first place. To my knowledge, our own LCDC has not (yet) used eminent domain to enrich its cronies and benefactors. But given time, it likely will.
Now our LCDC, supposedly created to promote “urban renewal” as that term was contemplated in I.C. § 50-2002, finds itself sitting on a pile-o-money and no “deteriorated and deteriorating areas … which constitute a serious and growing menace, injurious to the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the residents of the state,” to fix. What to do? Why, we’ll just twist the law, expand it to decree that in 1965 the Idaho Legislature really meant to say “economic development” instead of “urban renewal.” So now we have an unelected body of interested parties with access to some of the police powers of the state. What could possibly go wrong with that?
Of course, the LCDC was wrong (not that any of its cronies who profit nicely from the LCDC’s eagerness to spend/waste/redistribute other people’s money would object). The Legislature proved that in 1988 when it added I.C. 50-2902 to the Idaho Economic Development Act in Title 50, Chapter 29. If Idaho Code Title 50, Chapter 20 had been written to allow its abuse to be expanded to “economic development”, then Idaho Code Title 50, Chapter 29 would have been unnecessary, superfluous. Unfortunately, our snoozing and lazy Legislature decided to rely heavily on “urban renewal” as included in Idaho Code, Title 50, Chapter 20 when it wrote Chapter 29. And that has allowed dishonest apologists for “urban renewal” to dupe ignorant citizens into believing the lie that “Urban renewal is the only economic development tool available in Idaho.”
In a few weeks the Idaho Legislature’s Urban Renewal Interim Committee will convene ostensibly for the purposes articulated in House Concurrent Resolution 17.
I hope that the Legislature is serious about those purposes and that it genuinely wants to preserve the valid and workable purposes of I.C. Title 50, Chapter 29, while at the same time recognizing and correcting the vulnerabilities that have been exploited by some unelected urban renewal agency commissioners and employees to the detriment of Idaho citizens. But I am skeptical.
Comment by Bill — June 13, 2015 @ 6:20 am
Pertaining to: Idaho Code Title 50, Chapter 20 — some of that seriously needs to be reworked for sure.
I added the bold/underline for emphasis because that is where I started laughing and wanted others to have a good laugh, too.
“50-2002. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS OF NECESSITY. It is hereby found and declared that there exist in municipalities of the state deteriorated and deteriorating areas (as herein defined) which constitute a serious and growing menace, injurious to the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the residents of the state; that the existence of such areas contributes substantially and increasingly to the spread of disease and crime, ….”
I laughed some more when I read this part,”… through the means provided in this act, be susceptible of conservation or rehabilitation in such a manner that the conditions and evils hereinbefore enumerated may be eliminated, remedied or prevented; …”
Seriously, funny stuff.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 13, 2015 @ 8:32 pm
Stebbijo,
Apparently the Idaho Legislature was incapable of original analysis and writing back when it adopted I.C. Title 50, Chapter 20. It used language that did accurately describe real urban blighted conditions in real urban areas but not Idaho. It looks to me as if the Legislature got snookered by snake oil salesmen who saw opportunities to use the mantra of “urban renewal” to convince trusting citizens (and trusting citizen legislators) to spend the public’s money to enrich the aforementioned salesmen and their cronies.
Comment by Bill — June 14, 2015 @ 6:08 am
Steb,
If you replace the word “area” with the word “people” would sound like a law used during the Salem Witch trials. Funny stuff for sure.
Comment by Old Dog — June 14, 2015 @ 12:14 pm
A couple of thoughts: First: What did the citizens of Coeur d’Alene receive from Hagadone Hospitality when the city gave them the use of First Street south of Sherman to the water? Second: The Design Review Committee, during Bloem’s administration, wanted the city to address the height issue but the issue was rejected. The Planning Commission also requested a description for the base level by which all heights are determined but was ignored.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — June 15, 2015 @ 4:08 pm
Then, if that is the case, shouldn’t the current city council take a look at the “height” issues. Can the council ‘undo’ those issues that were ignored and rejected?
Comment by Stebbijo — June 15, 2015 @ 7:47 pm