RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

City police officer target of child porn probe

State investigating unnamed Rutland officer's computers for child pornography



Rutland District Court Judge Thomas Zonay discusses unsealing a search warrant executed at the Rutland City police station with attorney Matt Harnett on Tuesday. Harnett is the attorney for the unnamed police officer at the center of the investigation.

Vyto Starinskas / Rutland Herald

Toolbox

By Brent Curtis Staff Writer - Published: February 10, 2010

A Rutland City police officer is under investigation after evidence of child pornography was found on his work computers.

A 31-page warrant and accompanying affidavit released Tuesday revealed that much but not the identity of the officer, whose name was redacted at least temporarily by order of a Rutland District Court judge.

(Read the court documents and related stories by clicking on the links to the right.)

Less than a week after the Rutland Herald asked for the warrant, which was executed at the city police department in September, Judge Thomas Zonay followed through Tuesday with his order to make the contents public while withholding the officer's name to consider a pending motion that his identity be permanently sealed.

What Zonay did release revealed a state police investigation overseen by the Attorney General's office which began in August, after technicians working on a laptop issued to the unidentified officer found on it images of what appeared to be child pornography.

The officer told computer technicians in the department that he was searching online for information about hidden cameras and police videos when pornographic images began "popping up" on the machine, which stopped working altogether soon thereafter, according to state police Detective Sgt. Jason Letourneau. The officer under investigation told police the incident occurred while he was on duty.

Further analysis of the computer revealed 150 possible images of child pornography, Letourneau wrote, which were all added to the computer in a 13-minute time span on July 23. The detective said he also found more than 100 pornographic files of adult subjects.

In a search of the officer's desktop computer, investigators found more cause for concern, including files created for a media player that seem to refer to children's ages through characters such as Y11 YRLD and Y11 next to sexually explicit labels.

In an interview with state police, the city officer under investigation at first said he was simply researching clip-on video cameras for use in the field when pornographic images began swamping his computer.

But Letourneau said he and another investigator didn't believe that account.

"We further explained that the evidence collected during the examination of the computer clearly reveals that he visited pornographic Web sites, that they did not just pop up on his screen," he wrote. "(The officer) then told us that he may have clicked on a few adult pornographic websites not knowing they were pornographic websites. We again explained that the titles of the Web sites he visited were clearly pornographic by the titles alone."

Letourneau wrote that the officer eventually admitted to purposely visiting the pornographic sites, but he told investigators the visits were for research into the clip-on cameras he was seeking — not to view pornographic material.

"He said he visited the pornographic Web site to see what type of cameras they used," the detective wrote. "He later advised he also wanted to see what angle the cameras were used and the quality of the images/videos."

A search warrant executed at the department on Sept. 22 seized evidence from the officer's desk, locker and other belongings at the department.

Among other things, police seized a rack of 20 pornographic DVDs, four VHS tapes listed with pornographic titles, three DVDs identified as "teen porn" and a DVD titled "midget porn."

Since the warrant was executed no charges have been brought, but Assistant Attorney General John Treadwell said Tuesday the criminal investigation is continuing.

Treadwell argued last week against the Herald's request to unseal the search warrant, which was closed to the public upon its return to Orleans District Court on Sept. 29.

In the information released by the court on Tuesday, Zonay said Treadwell argued in a written motion and in a closed-door hearing on Feb. 3 that releasing the contents of the warrant would jeopardize the criminal investigation.

"The state asserted that the investigation is ongoing and that investigators have continued to interview individuals with knowledge of the matter as well as to investigate the suspect's home Internet use," Zonay wrote. "(Treadwell) further sets forth that the state has attempted to obtain probable cause to obtain additional warrants. It also asserts the investigators wish to again speak with the suspect concerning the findings they made since they last spoke with him and that any disclosure of certain information in the warrant records would impede the investigation."

In particular, the judge wrote that investigators want to locate a removable media component — such as a disc or memory stick — used on the officer's computer, which is one of the missing links in the investigation.

However, in his analysis, the judge wrote that there was no reason to believe that keeping the documents sealed would aid attempts to uncover physical evidence in the case.

"There is … no basis for the court to conclude that this will be any more likely than it was over the past four months when such evidence has not been brought forth, nor that unsealing will somehow hamper the possibility of discovering the evidence," he wrote.

But while the judge found no harm in releasing the documents, Zonay decided Tuesday to withhold the officer's name and identifying information until he had a chance to consider arguments made by Rutland attorney Matthew Harnett, who argued in court that his client — the officer under investigation who was identified during the hearing as "John Doe" — would suffer irreparable harm if his name was included.

"The subject matter itself is dynamite — the most stigmatizing of all types of charges. Once published, his reputation would be ruined," Harnett said, adding that his client has not been charged with a crime.

But the Herald's attorney, Robert Hemley of Gravel & Shea in Burlington, said the public interest in a transparent government and judicial system outweighed the privacy interests of John Doe.

"The public has a big interest in knowing what the operations of the police are," he said. "How are we to monitor the operations of the government? We need the press to inform us about both sides."

Zonay said he would issue a decision after considering the arguments.

brent.curtis@rutlandherald.com

The warrant is below:

Warrent -








READER COMMENTS


But, we seem to be missing the crux of the matter.

As posted by steve Nunya-what exactly is wrong with midget porn? Let's get our priorities straight here. ;- )
-- Posted by Lary Fusco on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 8:52 pm EST

report this comment



This is not surprising AT ALL. The Rutland Police Department is CORRUPT THROUGH AND THROUGH. I've been through a complaint against the RPD, and I know others who have, and when it gets "investigated" (laugh), what do you know -- Bossi and cronies find nothing. And the courts are IN ON IT, deferring to the officers. As has been commented before, if this were anyone else but the police, the name would already be out there, even though we're supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty." What hypocritical double standards. This makes me want to vomit.
-- Posted by Icon O'Clast on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 12:36 pm EST

report this comment



I guess the cops and homeland security came down on the Herald. I guess they don't want to hear that people are p i s s e d that it's a sham and a coverup. Seems to me Law Enforcement's partly responsible for creating the "stigma" around child porn.

Like I said before:

All animals are created equal, some animals are more equal than others.
-- Posted by Lives in Colorado on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 11:58 am EST

report this comment



I'M OUTRAGED! I pay the salary of every welfare collecting, single Mom of 7! I pay the salary of every SSI collecting jerk with the disability of "laziness" and "drinking problem"! I am OK with the abuse of the system there though....

I AM THE MOST OUTRAGED WITH THIS OFFICER!!!!!!

I also pay .00009% of his salary, therefore, I am his boss! I want answers!!!!!

GIVE ME ANSWERS!!!!

It's ok Lashanda, have another baby, we'll give you more money.
-- Posted by Tom Fedele on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 6:38 am EST

report this comment



My name:
I'll take you at your word that you're not guessing. Lots of people have made it clear they know who the person is.

I agree that it's unfair to the rest of the force. But that's a decision John Doe made when he chose to fight disclosure. And it's a spin off of the decision Chief Bossi made in September when he chose to leave an officer in place after a search warrant had been served in the police station ... and three city computers were seized along with the contents of the locker.

And at this point, I think it's up to the mayor and the chief whether they think the citizens and the force ought to be kept hanging. So we're discouraging speculation in favor of playing out the process. If the other end of Wales Street is going to force us to go through the courts to tell readers what's happening in their city and on their force, I don't want to give them an easy out like "Everybody knew who it was, so there was no real harm. It was even posted on the Herald's web site." Either they are keeping a secret from the city, at a real cost, or they're being open with us. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
Thanks,
R
-- Posted by Randal Smathers on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 12:20 am EST

report this comment



I agree with tom and leanne! To be honest Randall Im not guessing.I believe his name should be told. Did you ever stop and think that every single RPD officer is a suspect to the public right now. How fair is that??
-- Posted by my name on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 11:05 pm EST

report this comment



I agree with Dwayne, It doesn't matter if he has been convicted or not. He is guilty of viewing porn while on duty. the evidence is there. How can anyone say that it is ok, or that his name should be protected? Are there people out there that really believe that it's ok? Do they not realize that the city of Rutland was basically paying him to sit behind his desk and pleasure himself? Seriously think about it. I can only imagine what will be said if he is aloud back to work. Oh how wrong it would be.
-- Posted by Leanne newville on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 10:24 pm EST

report this comment



Traci,

One last try for me.

"I never claimed to be an expert witness." I never said you were an expert witness.

"By you attacking me, you have gotten off track of the REAL issue here. You've ended up only attacking me and taking light off of whats really going on, outside of this forum."

Traci, at what point have I attacked you? I merely have a different opinion than you. And yes, what you state is your OPINION, nothing else. As You have claimed, you are not an expert witness, nor am I.

As far as his name being published... He paid for a lawyer to redact it, the VT AG's office also requested it be redacted to protect the investigation. This apparently is still an active investigation where eveidence may be risked by releasing his name. Again, this happens all the time in cases. Search warrants are sealed to protect the investigation, protect witnesses, etc...

"Where is your faith in the "system" that you are touting? IF it is proven that he did not do the things they are investigating and he is cleared . . .his "good" name will be restored . . isn't that how the system works?"

In theory, yes. In reality, no. If his name is smeared with any hint of doing wrong, that will follow him. Just as a criminal in a jury trial can not be smeared, as it will taint the juries view of that person. If this Officer is in the clear, his name will always be tarnished. Keeping an untarnished name is very important when you are a cop.

My disclaimer: I do not advocate child porn! If he did download child porn, then he should be punished!
-- Posted by Tom Fedele on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 8:28 pm EST

report this comment



This is the work of a psychopath, who wanted to get caught. It's that simple. Read the PDF file. It's either that or he's the biggest idiot that ever put on a uniform. Unless he was trying to hide it from his family why would anyone store porn their porn at work?
-- Posted by Sam Hubert on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 6:59 pm EST

report this comment



Tom: You seem to have misinterpreted almost everything I've stated, merely as my OPINION. I never claimed to be an expert witness . . just a concerned and sickened citizen who lives, works and plays here and has rights too.

I, with my hard work, contribute to this man's salary and I don't like the fact that someone I am forced to help support, yet had no say in hiring, has now violated the public's trust . . .just by virtue of having anything pornographic on his WORK computer and at work PERIOD. Save your "issues" for your own time and in your own home and then its NONE of my business. I could care less at that point.

By you attacking me, you have gotten off track of the REAL issue here. You've ended up only attacking me and taking light off of whats really going on, outside of this forum . . .in the real world. But that SO often happens here.

If we don't want names published before someone is charged, then do it across the board, not with some and "not" with others. What makes Mr. Police Officer's rights any more important or valued than mine, than my neighbor's or Kathy Lantagne's and many others. Oh yes, we go back to the lawyer issue. Yes, anyone can ask for names and info to be redacted but that does not mean that its automatically granted. Oh now we're back to individual Judges and individual interpretations!

Where is your faith in the "system" that you are touting? IF it is proven that he did not do the things they are investigating and he is cleared . . .his "good" name will be restored . . isn't that how the system works?

As far as I am concerned, he should still lose his job (at the very least) and not be allowed to be a Police Officer for looking at ANY porn - at work - and on MY dime!!!! It just screams wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No matter what you say, I am not going to change my stance on any of what I've said here today - so give it up and enjoy your evening! I am.
-- Posted by Traci Pena on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 6:16 pm EST

report this comment



Hi My name:
Joe Gunther and Lester Spinney are fictional characters from Archer Mayor novels. I'm not comfortable with people guessing which cop it is (and implicating real, live people) on our message boards, and as Zonay is going to release the name, we're willing to wait.
-- Posted by Randal Smathers on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 6:12 pm EST

report this comment



Ok so why r your posts not being deleted like mine was?? I think I hit the hammer on the nail.
-- Posted by my name on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 6:09 pm EST

report this comment



Joe Gunther? No! My money's on Lester Spinney. It's always the straight-laced family man, isn't it?

Say it ain't so, Joe...
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 6:02 pm EST

report this comment



I have $20 on Joe Gunther is the culprit.
-- Posted by Tom Fedele on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 5:22 pm EST

report this comment



Traci,

Generally in internet forums, such as this, caps does in fact mean YELLING!!!!! (Note the excessive use of exclamations.)

"Last time I checked, Rutland was still part of America"..Quote of Traci Pena. Thank You Traci, therefore, this Officer still has rights afforded to him. As this is America. One of his rights was to file a motion to redact his name, which he did.

"Just for the record, NOT EVERYONE can afford an attorney or a good one who will do a good job." That is not my problem nor is it the problem of the Officer who retained his own attorney. People work hard for their money and don't always expect handouts. The gov't does provide lawyers to those accused.

"I've been a paralegal in a previous profession . . .I know the legal system all too well"..... well, in that case, I guess I can not argue with a paralegal.

"I'm going to keep sharing my opinion, despite people like you."... Oh Traci, have I prevented you from sharing your opinion? I simply reply to your posts, please do not get mad or think I preventing you from posting.

All I ask is that we allow this investigation to take its course before casting judgement. There is no cover up, no conspiracies, no "good ol' boy" work at play here. Vt State Police and the AG's office are not going to cover up for anyone. RPD admin also reported this so it could be investigated.

"Can't we all just get along!"... R.King
-- Posted by Tom Fedele on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 5:19 pm EST

report this comment



Oh, and for what it's worth... if Entergy doesn't send our local Boys in Blue a big fruit basket as a thank-you for knocking them off of the front pages for a couple of days, they really do deserve every ounce of bad mojo coming their way!
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 4:36 pm EST

report this comment



Yeah, you guys. What Randal said. Stop Smathering innuendo all over this forum.

(Man, I'm gonna make that phrase catch on if it kills me.)
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 4:34 pm EST

report this comment



Tom, I was in no way shape or form yelling . .is that what "in caps" means to you?

Your statement was that the other case I mentioned was federal and she worked alone - I simply responded to your statement with my OPINION.

Last time I checked, Rutland was still part of America and therefore, I'm entitled to my OPINION, yelling it or otherwise. And as a resident, taxpayer & business owner in this community, I'm going to keep sharing my opinion, despite people like you.

Just for the record, NOT EVERYONE can afford an attorney or a good one who will do a good job. I've been a paralegal in a previous profession . . .I know the legal system all too well and in many different capacities, Thank you.
-- Posted by Traci Pena on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 4:15 pm EST

report this comment



Please do not speculate in posted comments on the name of the officer involved.
Judge Zonay has agreed to release his name on Friday; if the city wishes to do the right thing and inform the citizens before then, we would welcome it.
However, out of fairness to individual officers who may become the subject of inaccurate speculation, we will not allow that thread of comments to continue.
Thanks in advance.
Randal
-- Posted by Randal Smathers on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 4:12 pm EST

report this comment



Traci, PLEASE DON'T YELL!

No one is protecting this guy/gal. RPD reported it to VSP to investigate. VSP used a Detective from Derby to investigate this, to ensure it was no one with ties to this Officer being investigated.

What if during the investigation, it was found someone else was looking at the child porn, not him? Then protecting his name is important.

You asked in one post why Lantagne was in the papers, wether it was due to her not having a good lawyer. I answered that the RPD Officer hired his own, you respond later "AND YOUR POINT IS . . ITS BETTER TO COMMITT A CRIME ON A STATE LEVEL RATHER THAN A FEDERAL LEVEL AND DO IT WITH OTHERS?" No, that is not my point. My point is anyone can hire a lawyer. I was answering your post.

It's very difficult to make points with people that won't listen to reason.

I ask you, what details have already been "leaked?" Please respond with facts, not YELLING and non-facts.
-- Posted by Tom Fedele on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 3:14 pm EST

report this comment



Now that the name will be released...time for more questions...has this person's home been searched? If the warrant was served 3 months ago...how much potential evidence has been lost or destroyed???
-- Posted by Frank Gonzales on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 2:55 pm EST

report this comment



Awesome of you Rutland folk to provide computers for your employees to check out kiddie and adult porn on! Wow- if a 21 year old working at Walmart was discovered to be checking out adult porn while at work, their butt would be out the door that day. Where was the supervisor? Or was it the supervisor? And the Herald is right in demanding who this is- because if it was anyone else, that persons name would be ALL OVER THE NEWS!

(And, btw, if you are checking out cameras, you might want to go to Radio Shack, or Staples or another store rather than looking at porn online. Believe it or not, they rarely list the camera type in the promos of the film- and who is around to see the ending credits??;) That has to be a winner in the lame excuse category. Sending this story on to the National Enquirer!
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 1:57 pm EST

report this comment



1. No one is protecting this man. RPD notified VSP when they discovered this. They in turn started a criminal investigation.

THIS MAN IS BEING PROTECTED BY ANYONE & EVERYONE NOT STANDING UP AND DEMANDING THAT HIS NAME BE RELEASED FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THIS COMMUNITY. HIS ATTORNEY STATED THAT HIS REPUTATION WOULD BE FOREVER TARNISHED AND THEREFORE, HIS NAME SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED. POOR GUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2. Asst. Attorney General Treadwell wanted this sealed to protect the criminal investigation as others are involved. It states this in the article. Sealing search warrants to protect the integrity of investigations happens alot.

DETAILS HAVE ALREADY BEEN LEAKED AND SHARED - SO FURTHER RELEASING JUST THE PERSON'S NAME IN QUESTION HARDLY SEEMS LIKE ENOUGH TO JEOPARDIZE AN ENTIRE INVESTIGATION. HIS NAME IS GOING TO SPREAD LIKE WILDFIRE ANYWAYS . . . SO WHY NOT JUST BE FORTHCOMING AND HELP THE PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY SEE THE "SYSTEM" IN A POSITIVE LIGHT AND FEEL ENCOURAGED (FOR ONCE) TO BELIEVE THAT ITS WORKING THE WAY ITS SUPPOSED TO?

3. The woman you speak of, Kathy Lantagne, is suspected of acting alone and it is a federal case, investigated by federal authorities.

AND YOUR POINT IS . . ITS BETTER TO COMMITT A CRIME ON A STATE LEVEL RATHER THAN A FEDERAL LEVEL AND DO IT WITH OTHERS?

4. The Officer in question hired his/her own attorney to represent their interests. Anyone can do this, it's not cheap. I do not think RPD pays that well, so I am aure it's quite a burden.

AS IT SHOULD BE - IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE STUPID AND BREAK THE LAW, YOU SHOULD INCUR SOME KIND OF BURDEN.

5. Judges do interpret things differently, that's our criminal justice system.

EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!! IT DOESN'T WORK THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO.
-- Posted by Traci Pena on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 1:53 pm EST

report this comment



To Tom Fedele: And you don't think having pornographic websites of children (and adults) stored on your work computer &/or similar videos and then kept at your job is enough probable cause to have charges filed against you?

Do you think that's acceptable on any level for any person?

Looking at naked adults engaged in sex acts in the privacy at your own home may be acceptable and I could care less if the Pope was doing that. Its none of MY business or care. Adults are capable of making their own decisions but children are not.

I simply will not tolerate the leaders in my community (that I live in and pay taxes to) be allowed to violate children and than add further insult by doing it in the office that I help pay for. Its simply disgusting an fiercely intolerable.

This man/person/cop/human being should just own up to his discretions and ask for help . . .I can get with that and could even respect him - if he did that. We all have weaknesses, skeletons in our closets, issues and problems. No-one on this green earth is exempt from it.

But this protecting HIS reputation is ********! Not being open & honest with the community is going to do more damage & hurt - to an already hurting community, in the long run.

I am sure I am NOT the ONLY person who feels this way and if I am, I'm fortunate that there is Freedom of Speech still left (on some level) in this Country.
-- Posted by Traci Pena on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 1:37 pm EST

report this comment



If this had been a member of the general public the name would have been plastered all over the Herald.

Good Ole Boy network still alive and well in Rutland.
.
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 1:32 pm EST

report this comment



"Among other things, police seized a rack of 20 pornographic DVDs, four VHS tapes listed with pornographic titles, three DVDs identified as "teen porn" and a DVD titled "midget porn.""

Just as an FYI, 18 and 19 year olds are "teens" too, although they have attained the age of majority. As for the "midget porn", you can get more of them on-screen during an orgy.
-- Posted by Joe Bradley on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 1:23 pm EST

report this comment



Traci,

It sounds like the FEDS have looser lips than the STATE. No, it is not fair, but it is a reality.
-- Posted by Joe Bradley on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 1:18 pm EST

report this comment



1. No one is protecting this man. RPD notified VSP when they discovered this. They in turn started a criminal investigation.

2. Asst. Attorney General Treadwell wanted this sealed to protect the criminal investigation as others are involved. It states this in the article. Sealing search warrants to protect the integrity of investigations happens alot.

3. The woman you speak of, Kathy Lantagne, is suspected of acting alone and it is a federal case, investigated by federal authorities.

4. The Officer in question hired his/her own attorney to represent their interests. Anyone can do this, it's not cheap. I do not think RPD pays that well, so I am aure it's quite a burden.

5. Judges do interpret things differently, that's our criminal justice system.
-- Posted by Tom Fedele on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 1:13 pm EST

report this comment



CORRECTION: Kathy Lantagne, a 19-year veteran of the Agency of Human Services, is the subject of a federal investigation into possible embezzlement, bank fraud, money laundering, mail and wire fraud, and conspiracy, according to the court papers - BUT HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED OR INDICTED . . .however, her name & picture HAVE been all over the news.

So why is it acceptable in HER case but not in the Police Officer case?
Because she is a woman?
Because she doesn't have a good attorney?
Because a different Judge interprets the law(s) differently?

WHO is protecting this man (or themselves & others) . . . .. And WHY?
Doing so, causes more harm to many more people, on many different levels. Perception is a powerful thing . . by not being forthcoming, open & honest, dissension is created and allowed to run wild & wreak havoc, again, on so many levels.

We, the people who help pay this man's salary and benefits deserve to know who we are employing. This is another fine example of abuse of power, as far as I am concerned.
-- Posted by Traci Pena on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 12:57 pm EST

report this comment



Traci, an idictment is one way of charging someone! A Grand Jury would have to find probable cause. So she was technically charged, just a different way of charging. An Idictment is a "charging document."

Anyone can motion the court to redact their name. It's not just a luxury afforded to the Police.
-- Posted by Tom Fedele on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 12:47 pm EST

report this comment



Just because this police officer has not been formally charged has nothing to do with releasing his name or not. The woman who was recently indicted (but not charged) for stealing money from a State Reach Up office has had her name, picture and life's details plastered all over the news, everyday for the past week.

This is a case of double standards, who you know and how much lawyering up one can afford.

As a community member, tax-payer, business person and parent, I am disgusted and disheartened that a community leader is being protected & sheltered to protect his image. As far as I am concerened, he lost that right when he willingly made his decisions and choices - then lied about it.

This is a small community and there is already speculation as to WHOM this person is . . .won't be but a few days and we'll all know anyways. His life changed the moment he clicked on those sites at work, made copies and then stored them at work, to boot. He deserves to have his ignorance exploited!

Looking at pornography and what you do in the privacy of your OWN HOME is one thing, but when you're looking at underage children in a sexual nature and then doing it on MY DIME, I've got a problem with that and the Court, The RPD, the Media, the Community as a Whole should stand up and say THIS IS SIMPLY NOT ACCEPTABLE and WE WON"T TOLERATE IT.

This man should NOT be allowed to enjoy his privacy and should be OUTED immediately . . .. .the children he violated didn't have that right, why should he?

What is wrong with our society and culture when those who are untrusted to protect us & uphold the law are the very ones violating us and breaking those laws?
This man and everyone protecting him - all need to be relieved of their positions & seek professional help, if they think this is the right way to handle this ugly mess.
-- Posted by Traci Pena on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 12:13 pm EST

report this comment



Which brings up my other point! If he is found innocent of the chargers fine but he was looking at porn at work! Not just any work place but a police dept. and I don't care what kind of porn he was looking at.
-- Posted by Dwayne Johnson on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 12:09 pm EST

report this comment



The caveat her being, "If found guilty at trial".
-- Posted by Joe Bradley on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 11:40 am EST

report this comment



B B, you're absolutely right. The probability that he is a detective is very high. This brings into question each and every case in which he has presented testimony against the accused who was later convicted. His character may now be attacked in the upcoming flood of appeals which will be based on this detective's character and the veracity of his testimony.

Not only is the Chief panicking, you can bet that the State's Attorney is NOT very happy over this revelation as the potential for a line of defense attorneys, at the court house, waiting to file their appeals on behalf of their convicted clientele looms darkly in their future.

Also there is the matter of the civil actions against the City of Rutland if any of the convictions are overturned, in part, based on the questionable nature of the detective's character and his testimony at trial.
-- Posted by Joe Bradley on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 11:36 am EST

report this comment



1. I'm not hiring him to be my baby sitter.

2. Many people look at porn, not all are pedophiles.

3. Why you so angry all the time?
-- Posted by Tom Fedele on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 11:31 am EST

report this comment



Thanks for the clarification, thank you City of Rutland. The answer to your question is yes. Now go read the results of the search warrent. I guess you personal views on porn will determine whether you trust this guy or not. My point is driven around trust... go ahead, you can hire this guy to be your baby sitter!
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 11:25 am EST

report this comment



I don't know all the facts! No, I may not trust him with my family, however, I question what has come to light as to why he has not been charged yet. Maybe further investigation proved something else.

Why hasn't he been charged? Why is he still employed? It's been five months, something else has come to light.
-- Posted by Tom Fedele on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 11:23 am EST

report this comment



I believe in innocent until proven guilty... read the results of the search warrent. Just because he hasn't been found guilty doesn't mean I am going to invite him over for dinner and hang out with my family. Would you trust this guy with your family?
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 11:07 am EST

report this comment



Mr. Dwayne Johnson, to answer one of your questions, you asked if this was a case of the Officer being so high up or that his dept. has never handled something so high up.... The Vermont State Police are handling the criminal investigation, based on a report by the "higher ups" at RPD. There is no cover up.

None None, read the other article reference this incident. The first line states the Officer in question is on adminastrative leave. A question for you: You do not believe in "innocent until proven guilty?"
-- Posted by Tom Fedele on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 11:02 am EST

report this comment



I do not know a company that one could work for that would allow porn to be at work. If the City allows this what the hell is going on here? How come this indiviual hasn't been fired or at least been put on "administrative leave". With the individual under investigation for a crime that involves children, I do not trust this officer - innocence until proven guilty has nothing to do with trust, especially when it comes to this person being close to my kids. This officer needs to be removed for the streets immediately. Either that or all of RPD, stay away from my family!!!! You have a bad apple, get rid of it before it spoils your cart.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 10:41 am EST

report this comment



Ok it's been 5 months right? Why is it taking that long? Is the evidence that strong that they have to figure out on how to deal with the situation? Is it because of the accused is so high up or is it a case of they never had to deal with something like this before in their own dept.?
-- Posted by Dwayne Johnson on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 10:35 am EST

report this comment



Its obvious that it is a detective and there isn't that many detectives on the rpd. I have a few ideas on who it is. Regardless there should be no special treatment at all. Whether he gets charged or not we have a right to know and he should loose his job like any average joe and the police wonder why their public image is so crappy.
-- Posted by B B on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 10:09 am EST

report this comment



Nunya, that was priceless.... "What's wrong with midgit porn?"
-- Posted by Sam Hubert on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 9:57 am EST

report this comment



Everyone keeps saying his name should be posted as others that have been "charged" had their names published. This Officer has NOT been charged yet. It has been five months, one would think he would have been charged at this point.

Again, he has not been charged. The investigation is still going. Police normally do not release suspects names in criminal investigations.
-- Posted by Tom Fedele on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 9:48 am EST

report this comment



Oh and I forgot to mention that even if he is in the clear of kiddie porn he still should be fired for having porn stored on a work computer and having it at work.
-- Posted by Dwayne Johnson on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 9:42 am EST

report this comment



I'm just saying they posted the name of the Lawyer I think it was that got busted with all of the drugs and had his license pulled. They can't post this guy's name? What the hell?!
-- Posted by Dwayne Johnson on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 9:39 am EST

report this comment



Well you know, cops are human beings too. There are gay cops, pedophile cops, crooked cops, good cops, straight cops, bad cops, drug addict cops, alcoholic cops, wife beater cops, BDSM cops.
Yep, just humans. I dont trust any humans I meet until they earn my trust. Why should it be any different with cops? Because they swore to uphold the law for their job? Yeah, child molesting priests sware to basically the same thing.
Just humans. This guy needs his name published like any one of us. Life over. And if he kills himself? So what? One less cop to wonder if you can trust.
-- Posted by Dr. Gonzo on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 9:11 am EST

report this comment



1) What's wrong with midget porn?

2)Blindly trusting any authoritarian entity, either a president, senator, police department or individual officer is absolutely foolish. All assaults on democracy and our Constitution are the result of an individual's hunger for power and control... similar qualities associated with rapists and pedophiles. "Trust us" is what the Nazis said and every other monster of humanity. Look what happens historically to peoples and nations far too willing to trust those in power with their rights and freedoms. Trust no-one in any authoritative capacity, question everything.

3) Did this individual want to be "caught" for something? Who in their right mind would ever think that it's OK to keep and store pornography at your workplace? At a police department? Often such egregious errors in judgment are the result of two primary causes: 1) the individual is really passively asking to be caught or, 2) their obsession becomes so strong that their perception of reality and consequences becomes clouded by the obsession itself to the point of their belief in their own invicability and infallability. That is right near insanity.

4) It appears that at the interview the officer attempted to lie repeatedly about what he appeared to know was on his computer.

We shall see...
-- Posted by steve Nunya on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 8:59 am EST

report this comment



This Officer has yet to be charged, it's been five months. He is or was under investigation, that does not mean people have to have his name. Many people are under investigation for many things, that the public does not know about.

Should the Police do press releases anytime they have someone under investigation? No. That would be a terrible investigative technique.

Was there a cover up? No, Rutland City Police reported this to Vermont State Police to investigate when they found out.

Many people on here are very quick to yell and scream when it involves Police. Trust me, if this guy/gal is guilty, they will be prosecuted. Allow the investigation to happen before casting judgement.
-- Posted by Tom Fedele on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 8:50 am EST

report this comment



Yes...innocent until proven guilty...my point is that if this was any one else there would be a press conference detailing everything found in the person's locker and computer...including their name. The double standard is clear.

It will be interesting to see how far the investigation goes...could this be related to the recent state police investigation? If guilty, who did this person trade with?

I think an independent investigation should be done here...to protect the rest of the police force.
-- Posted by Frank Gonzales on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 8:45 am EST

report this comment



Well, I guess, anyone who get's a search warrant for a serious crime can run to district court with a motion to redact and your name won't get plastered in the news. Maybe law enforcement should have photocopies of a motion when they cite people into court.

Judge Zonay in my opinion should have denied the motion. The cop is no different then any other person. He is not entitled to special privilages. Plus, I'd like to think the investigating officers did their due dilligence before they cited the cop. I don't thing sat around the break room and said, "hey let's go get this guy for giggles."

Cops, judges, lawyers are held to higher standards, when they have failed those standards, let the chips fall where they may. If that means the name getting into the news, so be it. If he's not guilty let him go through the court like everyone else. Covering this up, only makes it look worse.
-- Posted by Sam Hubert on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 8:29 am EST

report this comment



Where's Jerry Springer???
-- Posted by proctorian on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 8:26 am EST

report this comment



INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! This matter is STILL being investigated. There is good reason for the general public to NOT know the details at this time. I fully trust our police departments~ State, City and the Sheriff's. Look at the comments all ready posted. Looks like a wich hunt. Let the authorites do their job. We will all know what we need to know in due time.
-- Posted by proctorian on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 8:24 am EST

report this comment



First off I have two kids. I was angry when I first heard about this. But when I learned who it was and more about it..... I felt much better! Hes on leave, so tell your kids to trust the police!!!! And right now they can't post his name. He had porn. Not against the law to own it. Their are photos in QUESTION!!! again no solid prove. My kids are as safe today as they were yesturday..... If his name gets posted his life is over... or he may even take his own life..... Let the courts do its job....
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 8:23 am EST

report this comment



I want this officers name...and I want it NOW. Anyone else, ANYWHERE ELSE, would have been fired for the material in their locker alone. I'm told that the police require the trust of the people to be successful in protecting the city streets. We, the people, require the same of our police officers. Bossi needs to release the name of this officer TODAY so that we can tell our children to trust the police once again.
-- Posted by Frank Gonzales on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 7:54 am EST

report this comment



They said on wcac 11 o'clock news that the items were seized from the officers office. Keyword "office" so this means that it isn't the average traffic cop but an investigator since they have offices instead of just desks that most cops have throughout the station. I hope this person gets prosecuted to the fullest extent knowing d@mn well that what they were doing was not only sick but illegal and while on duty. If I had been charged I would have been dragged into the Rutland courthouse and my name would have been all over this webpage the next day but since it is a cop they hide the accused name even though the evidence is starting to pile high. Why protect him??? Castrate him!!! Can't wait to see the outcome ahead.
-- Posted by B B on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 7:24 am EST

report this comment



Oh I'm sorry but if it was my name or anybody elses it would have been released. Do you think they would care if it was our name that got released it would ruin our name or career? Come on!
-- Posted by Dwayne Johnson on Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 6:54 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout