This morning’s Coeur d’Alene Press reports (see article headlined Suit alleges excessive force, violation of rights) that Athol resident Mark Barnhouse has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Coeur d’Alene Police Department officers Johann Schmitz, Mark Knapp, Jonathan Hernas, and then Acting Chief Ron Clark.  The suit also seeks the Federal District Court’s permission to amend the complaint to add specifically named defendants as their identities become known to the plaintiff.

The lawsuit was filed on April 1, 2014, and was based on an incident which occurred on February 17, 2013, in the City of Coeur d’Alene.  The PACER case number is 2:14-cv-00129-EJL-REB, captioned Mark R. Barnhouse, Plaintiff, v. Johann Schmitz, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer, Mark Knapp, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer, Jonathan. Hernas, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer, Ron H. Clark, City of Coeur d’Alene, a municipality incorporated in the State of Idaho, and John Doe(s) I-V, Defendants.  The case number link is to the initial complaint.

There are a couple of tantalizing tidbits in the complaint:

“Defendant Mark Knapp was also responsible for the training, supervision, and control of defendant Johann Schmitz in the proper use of force.”  So, we wonder, was Mark Knapp a field training officer (FTO) and was Johann Schmitz a trainee at the time of this incident in 2013?

“In furtherance of their attempts to justify their unlawful arrest, both Officers Schmitz and Knapp made false statements of fact in their police report…” which were itemized in the complaint.  The complaint then alleges “The Officers then decided to modify and correct their false statements only after reviewing Officer Schmitz’s body camera.”  So Schmitz was wearing a body camera and had evidently activated it.  What about Knapp?  Especially if he was an FTO, his body camera should also have been activated.  Was it?

OpenCdA is happy to see that Mr. Barnhouse engaged legal counsel and brought this action in federal court.

This incident preceded the Arfee killing by a Coeur d’Alene police officer, but there appear to be some common threads between that and the present lawsuit.  It will be interesting to see how the City of Coeur d’Alene and its new police chief handle both cases.

OpenCdA is curious to know if any of the officers involved in Barnhouse and Arfee received their pre-service training in the North Idaho College’s POST certification program rather than at the POST academy in Meridian?

The public will be watching.

On July 9, 2014, a Coeur d’Alene police officer shot Arfee, a pet dog, inside its owner’s parked van .  Arfee’s owner had reportedly parked in the adjoining parking lot while he was patronizing Java on Sherman coffee shop.

In the late 1950’s the state of Maryland convicted John Brady of first degree murder .  His conviction was overturned by the US Supreme Court in 1963 because the prosecutor had withheld the existence of potentially exculpatory evidence from Brady. (see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963))

Because of the Coeur d’Alene Police Department’s misleading press release announcing the officer-involved shooting of Arfee on July 9, it will be interesting to see if the 1963 Brady decision and later decisions expanding it may play a role in the Arfee shooting outcome in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho in 2014. (more…)

Today’s Coeur d’Alene Press skewspaper story concerning the Arfee saga is headlined Arfee inquiry nearly done.

The article included two photos, both claiming to show Coeur d’Alene Police Department Lieutenant Turner making measurements on Craig Jones’ van in which his dog, Arfee, was shot by a Coeur d’Alene Police Department officer.

OpenCdA urges our readers to  read today’s newspaper article and carefully examine the photos.

From our perspective, the article and photos raises the question:  Is the City of Coeur d’Alene diligently investigating the Arfee shooting or is it engaging in theatrical public relations?  (more…)

Judging from the comments we’re hearing and reading, it sounds as if a lot of people in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and surrounding communities are starting to build a virtual gallows to end the professional career of the Coeur d’Alene police officer who shot Arfee the dog in the parking lot next to Java on Sherman on July 9 in  downtown Coeur d’Alene.

OpenCdA thinks calling for the officer’s dismissal is premature.

As we pointed out in our July 11, 2014, post entitled Careless Composition or Intentional Deception?, there was a very substantial amount of evidence available at the scene and associated with the incident.  That evidence, properly identified, collected, and preserved, would have given a much clearer and more complete picture of not only what happened but why it happened.

But now we learn from the Sunday, July 21 Coeur d’Alene Press article headlined ‘Critical incident’ protocol not followed in dog shooting that some of the perishable contemporaneous evidence was not collected.  Thus the “complete and thorough” internal investigation promised by acting Police Chief Ron Clark is a factual impossibility.

Rather than answering questions, Sunday’s Press article raises others.

The discretionary decision to invoke or not invoke the critical incident protocol was made by whom?  That is not a decision made by the officer who fired the shot.  Who in the Department had the authority to make that decision, and who actually made it on July 9?  At what time on July 9 was the decision made?  It had to have been made very quickly, probably within minutes of the shooting, so the necessary steps could be taken to identify and protect the scene and the evidence associated with it — or abandon the scene quickly as apparently happened in this incident.

Sunday’s Press article extensively quoted John Parmann, Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training’s Region 1 Training Coordinator.  According to the article, Parmann said, “Credibility is important in this whole thing.   I don’t know what happened out there. I’m relying on a very thorough and objective investigation to find out what happened.”  He also said, “If corrections need to be made in procedures, that will be done.  It’s a learning opportunity for everyone, the public, agency heads and the people who train the officers and supervise the officers. Everybody has the opportunity to learn from this.”

Well, maybe.  There can’t and won’t be a “very thorough and objective investigation to find out what happened” because someone (certainly not the officer who fired the shot) determined there would not be one.  Oh, there will be an investigation, but it will not be thorough —  it can’t be now.  The Coeur d’Alene Police Department abandoned the incident scene before much of the evidence could be identified and preserved.   That was not the fault of the officer who fired the shot.

OpenCdA understands the public’s anger and frustration.

But we conclude by restating what we said in our July 11 OpenCdA post:  The officer who fired the shot did not act in a vacuum.  The action he took on July 9 was a function of the training and supervision he had received up to the moment he pulled the trigger.  To the extent his actions were provably contrary to that training and supervision and departmental policies and practices, he was culpable.  However, to the extent his actions were a function of incomplete and conflicting training and supervision as well as unclear or imprecise policies and practices, his culpability is shared equally by several above him including his field supervisor and watch commander, the department’s training officer, the department’s command staff, the chief, the Mayor and City Council, and the Idaho Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

The shooting of a two-year old black Labrador mix dog by a Coeur d’Alene police officer last week has attracted deservedly unfavorable nationwide news media attention to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

In a Saturday skewspaper article headlined Image problem dogs police, the Coeur d’Alene Press reported “Widmyer [Coeur d’Alene Mayor Steve Widmyer] said the CPD [Coeur d’Alene Police Department ] is going to do an internal review of the dog shooting and have it reviewed by a third party before releasing the report.  ‘We want to make sure that we have covered all of our bases,’ he said.”

OpenCdA is not exactly sure how a CPD “internal review” and its report differs from a full investigation of the incident, but we firmly believe that a full investigation and report is not only warranted but essential for the public to understand the shooting incident.

Of one thing we are absolutely certain:  The report prepared by the CPD should not be edited by or on instructions from a third party as Widmyer’s remarks imply it could be.  We don’t know who the “third party” would be, but we believe the public would prefer and is entitled to hear the CPD’s version of what happened.  We believe that the citizens of Coeur d’Alene and Kootenai County are fully capable of determining if the CPD’s version is plausible.

As for Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, Mayor Steve Widmyer’s wanting “… to make sure we have covered all of our bases,” OpenCdA is concerned that it is not “our bases” Mayor Widmyer is interested in covering by not releasing the CPD report before it is reviewed by a third party.