Scribd
Upload
6K views78 pages

Evidence

Evidence

Uploaded by

Jennifer Weaver
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
6K views78 pages

Evidence

Evidence

Uploaded by

Jennifer Weaver
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 78
EXHIBIT 1 WI K IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT - LAYTON IN AND FOR DAVIS COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH THE STATE OF UTAH, 1 Plaintiff, \ vs. Case No, 041700208 LAURIE ANN CHARRY, Defendant. PRELIMINARY HEARING April 28, 2004 BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS L. KAY. District Court Judge Jeti Kearbey Certified Court Transcriber 1270, Gaylene Circle Sandy, Utah 84094 Gor) Monica Colby Rick W. Oaks a Bunny Gooch, Karen Orton Paul Mangleson Award rs John W. Jacobs Nora C, Ostler Nick M. Bowles % Todd R. Johnson Maurine Penrod V. David Joyner David § Wakefield Executive Award of Merit Amy Lightfoot ‘Michael J. Kuehn Sherry Nieman-Me- Don Ipson Cusker Citizen Service Award Sheriff James Cor- Deanne B. Mousley Dr. David W. dova Andrew A. Prescott Blodgett Sheriff LaMar Guy- Sheldon G. Riches Newell and Claudia mon ‘Tyler R, Roberts Penny Edgar “Ed? L. Phil- Pamela R. Russell lips C. Dean Shields Citizen Commendation “Ted R. Tingey Medal Public Safety Star Craig Ward ‘Alex Bray and Sarah, Jeffery L. Graviet Richard Wilkins Canaan Lisa Steed ‘Tara E, Zamora Erick L, Fullerton Jason Doman & Lifesaving Medal ‘Mark Whitney ‘Mike E, Cowdell Bryce Ivie Trooper of the Year Michael Freeman Lisa Steed Glen S. Porter UNIT CITATIONS Bureau of Criminal Identification “Brady” Staff Bureau of Criminal Identification Support Services Driver License Division Money Report Training Project DHRM/Department of Public Safety Field Office Department of Public Safety SERT"Team Department of Public Safety Fleet Operations Homeland Security Grant Monitoring Team Protective Services / State Bureau of Investigations ~ DUP Museum Investigation Utah Highway Patrol - Section 15, District F Utah Highway Patrol - Section 2, District Utah Highway Patrol ~ Section 3, District C Utah Highway Patrol - Oversize Vehicle Escort Training ‘Utah Highway Patrol ~ Firearms Instructor Corps 2007 Annual Report Utah Department of Public Safety locate information, including Amber Alerts into their patrol vehicles. ‘The UHP Training Section is responsible for the 40-hour yearly in-service training course for troopers. The staff also has programs in traffic collision investigatioi, defensive tactics, traffic law, Radar Lidar, emergency vehicle operation, firearms, and training new troopers Employees at UHP are our greatest resource and we strive to recognize them for their efforts, Many were recognized for their outstanding achievements at the annual, Utah Department of Public Safety (DPS) awards banquet. ‘This year the UHP Trooper of the year award ‘was given to Trooper Lisa Steed. Some other significant results are as follows; + 2,961 DUI Arrests (Jan.~ Dec. 2007) + 19,435 Crashes Investigated (Jan.— Dec. 2007) + 58,859 Public Assists (Jan.~ Dec. 2007) + 19,905 Responses to Road Hazards/Debris (Jan.~ Dec. 2007, this number includes multiple troopers responding to, or assisting with a single hazard/debris call) Adding Value ‘The UHP has many specialized teams with unique skills and specific missions. These include the DUI Squad, Criminal Interdiction ‘Team, Police Service Dogs, Special Emergency Response Team, DPS Dive/Rescue Team, Motorcycles, Aero Bureau and Citizen Police Academy. Each day, State Troopers work hard ‘on behalf of the people of Utah to provide professional police and traffic services, and to protect the constitutional rights of all people in Utah. In all areas of the state the Utah Highway Patrol met the challenges of 2007 with innovative solutions to public safety problems, Because of the dedication of our employees, we are confident that we can meet our mission in the future, 2007 Annual Report Utah Department of Public Safety fs s a 4g Es 3 i e 8 9 8 FS Es 3 S Utah Highway Patrol Weekly Report oe 1h This Issue ogee (Oe eet PIi= vamos ict Tieclatcn coo Shooting incident involving Trooper Randy Linke coal Greetings, (On July 29, 2010 someone fired two shots at UHP Trooper Randy Linke while he was ‘working in the Bountiful area, Here are the details we know at this time: The incident occurred Thursday night at 9:30 PM. Trp. Linke was parked on I-15 at Pages Lane in Bountiful working a construction shift. Preliminary information isa vehicle passed by and someone ftom the eat shot two rounds from a pistol at him. Trp. Linke said he heard the shots, got our of his car and discovered one round struck the body of the vehicle just above the passenger side rear tire and one round struck the concrete barrier. Thankfully he was not injured. Trp. Linke seems to be doing well. We are very grateful he was not hurt. Please ‘keep him and hs family in your thoughts and prayers. Commissioner D. Lance Davenport Utah Fast Pass (On Monday Aug. 2, 2010 Utah Fast Pass Fancy cars were in the spotlight at the Miller Motorsports Park Monday. Utah Fast Pass provides contributions to the Utah Highway Patrol's Honoring Heroes Foundation, local community projects and scholarships for local high school seniors. Utah Fast Pass showcases rare "cars of limited production” atthe 4.5- mile Miller Motorsports Park road course where drivers pushed their cars to the limit, For the neat three days, the ears will go on tour around the state to show off their rides and help ‘Utahns. In the first four years of Utah's Fast Pass has been able to donate $1 million to the citizens of Utah. When drivers tour the state UHP troopers wil follow them the whole way to make sure they don't use that Fast Pass on Utah's highways. We want to thank Captain Cleve for his efforts in this project. UHP 911, a Dodge Charger, privately owned by Brian Bacigalupo participated during the event. Our Mission is to provide professional police and traffic services, and to protect the constitutional rights of all people in Utah. DUI/ Section 16 Weekly Report During the week of July 27, 2010 through August 2, 2010 the Section 16 compiled the following Siats DUT Arrest Not A Drop Metabolite Alcohol Restricted ‘Minor in Possession Ignition Interlock Drug Related Arrests ‘Open Container Violation ‘Total Vehicle Stops S DUT Squad has selected Zach Randall and Cody MeCoy to replace Randy Riches and Brian s Chris Dunn, ‘Trooper Chris Newlin, Trooper Brian Spillman and Trooper Tk aiended the North West Alcohol Conference in Park City Utah, Corporal Lisa Steed received the award for Career Achievement at the North West Alcohol Conference Timinal Interdiction (On August 2, 2010, a corporal stopped a vehicle for traffic offense on I-80 at ‘milepost 105 in Salt Lake County. Three Middle-Eastern males were inside the vehicle. The corporal became suspicious of criminal activity after their stories were ‘not consistent with the innocent motoring, public. He deployed K-9 Tank around the ‘outside of the vehicle. K-9 Tank gave a positive indication in trunk of the car. A probable cause search revealed 5 Ibs of high grade marijuana and $5,142.00 inside a suitease. ‘Our Mission is to provide professional police and traffic services, and to protect the constitutional rights of all people in Utah. EXHIBIT 3 ‘SALT LAKE CITY JUSTICE COURT SALT LAKE CITY, FINDINGS OF FACT AND Plaintifé, : CONCLUSIONS OF LAN, ORDER v Case No. 09CRO7252 RICK JACKSON, i Defendant Sudgs Gutter This matter comes before thé court on Defendant’ s Motion to Suppress evidence. City was present and represented by Matthew Hansen. The defendant was present and represented by Kevin Jackson. ‘The defendant attacks the reasonableness of a traffic stop. The defendant ‘drove from a neighborhood convenience store's. private parking lot located at 900 West 900 North, in Salt Lake City, Utah, on May 16, 2009, At approximately 9:00 p.m. the defendant exited the parking lot, made a right, hand turn northbound on 900 West. At that time and location, a Utah, Highway Patrol Trooper Cpl, Iisa Steed'was parked conducting surveillance on the mini~market. Although stationary and her attention drawn to the activities in and axound the mini~market, Trooper Steed testified and described her patrol activities as ‘traffic enforcement’. Upon cross-examination, Trooper Steed conceded. the UKP is and has been conducting an ongoing investigation regarding this convenience stoze for suspicion of selling alovhol to under~aged and/or intoxicated persons. Trooper Steed testified she became aware of this ongoing investigation’ when she was assigned to her ‘now current position in March, 2009, Pursuant to that ongoing investigation, Trooper Steed testified she routinely uses surveillance this neighborhood store during her regular patrol activities. Such was the setting on May 16, 2009. The Trooper acknowledges that as part of this investigation she routinely parke across the street observes the interior and activities at the mini market. Trooper Steed further acknowledges using binoculars to enable her observation of the interioz of the market, On Way 16, 2009 at approximately 9:00pm the trooper was parked observing store patrons coming and going as she had done on prior occasions. ‘Trooper Steéd testified that her fixst recollection of observing the defendant is as’ he exited the mini-market, The Trooper testified on cross examination she did not observe the defendant stumble, stagger, loose his balance or display any beliavior consistent, with use or intoxication of alcobol. ‘That based upon her observation the defendant appeared over the age of 21, In fact, the defendant testified he was 53 years old and based upon the defendant’s personal appearance and deneanor in the courtroom a reasonable person could not infer the defendant'to be underage. The trooper observed the defendant. carrying three beer packages to his automobile. Trooper Stead observed the defendant enter an automobile and drive through a privete exit driveway and enter 900° West. Upon cross examination, the: trooper conceded she didn’t observe any vehicle movement in the parking lot to be ‘suspicious of an: impaired or deinking driver. She further stated she could not necall which of ‘the three private driveway exits the Asfeexant utdlized exiting the parking lot. Trooper Steed characterized the defehdant''s driving pattern upon exiting the parking let as follows. The defendant made a right ture on to mexthbound 900 West. In exiting the parking lot, the defendant..moved across thé right lane. (lane #2), entered the far left lane (lane #1) and proceeded north on 900 West. The officer testified this driving path’ constituted 2 traffic violations. First, the defendant failed to make a right turn as close as practicable to the curb or edge of the roadway. Second, defendant immediately acquired lane #1 without entering and remaining in lane # 2, signaling and then transitioning to lane # 1’northbound. In the officer's opinion, this constituted failure to signal as the defendant moved through the #2 lane to acquire the # 1 lane. Troopex Steed further described the defendant’s auto proceading north on 900 West for 1 block, turn left onto westbound 1000 North and another right turn approximately one-half block later. ‘Thereafter the trooper initiated a traffic stop with emergency lights and the defendant apparently responded reasonably and stopped his car, No other reason was identified by Trooper Steed for: the traffic step, but for the manner the defendant exited the parking lot, In summary, Trooper Stead identified one traffic violation by moving from a private driveway onto a multilane roadway and not entering the ‘lane closest to the curb. Upon cross ‘examination, the trooper further reviewed defense exhibit 1, a photograph.of the parking lot and the three private driveway exits from the market ‘parking lot. The Trooper testified that Exhibit 1 qeasonably dllustrated the parking lot, the three exits and.four lane roadway mediately in front of the market. Thé Trooper initially testified no zoad construction, barriers or cones existed to direct northbound traffic on 900 West. She, initially testified. the #2 lane was not blocked by any road construction on May 16, 2009. During sebuttal examination by the prosecution, ‘Trooper Stead testified construction existed after May 16, 2009 iut the Jocation of construction barriers and onange cones started ho closez’ to the oorvenience store than 960 South, 900 west and it-was later that same. summer, not in May, 2003. Defendant and the convenience. store cashier were sworn, and testified: The cashier testified his’ employment hours are from 3:00 pm to midnight. The stoxe clerk testified that he had seen Trooper Steed on prior occasions and in fact approached the. Trooper Steed'on one occasion. Jn that interaction Trooper Steed confirmed she was observing the mini-market and informed the store clerk there would be no problem so long as he ID'd people purchasing alcohol and did not sell ‘alcohol to intoxicated people. ‘The cashiex’s conversation with this trooper confimms the existence of an ongoing alcohol investigation regarding the market ‘owners and/or patrons who are underage or intoxicated when purchasing alcohol. This testimony © establishes Trooper Steed’s motive and more singular purpose at that location, alcohol interdiction, not traffic enforcement. ‘The store clerk further testified that although he could not remember if road construction existed on May 16, 2009. He believed the road construction did exist in May and not later that summer as testified by Trooper Steed. The store clerk testified that defendant's Exh. 3, showing road construction barriers, cones and traffic contzol devices closing the northbound lane #2 did accurately reflect the construction and traffic control devices present in May, 2009. The defendant testified he saw the UP on the evening in, question and had observed other UHP patrol units at the same location on many prior occasions. The defendant and cashier testified the defendant is almost a daily patron; The defendant further ‘testified the trooper in, this matter, a female officer, had been observed by him on many occasions prior to May 16, 2009 ‘The Defendant offered without bjection 3 photographs of the market and roadway. The defendant testified that Exhibit 3, (a photo of construction barriers beginning’ near the north property line of the mini market store) was taken approximately “..a couple of days,.” after the citation in question, The defendant claims and his credibility as to this date is believable in that he wanted to have photographs to ‘present to the diiver’e license administrative hearing which is zequized by law to be within the first 30 days from receipt of a DUI citstion. Furthermore a request for an administrative hearing mst be filed within 10 days of a DUT citaticn. Ultimately this case turns on 3 gags and 1 Legal question. In zegard to the facts, when, where and if construction cones were placed in the # 2 Lene or noxthbound traffic on 309 West. In fegard to the legal question, is the turn from a private driveway in manner described by the officer e traffic violation? The testimony offered by the police officer understandably conflicts with the defendant's version of events. However, Trooper Steed’s testimeny Lacks exedibility in three xemarkable manners. First, the trooper claims. to be on ‘traffic enforcement’ when the clear purpose and ongoing investigation is an interdiction effort to prevent the illegal sale of alcohol. Hence, the Trooper's intexest in making traffic stops is undermined by her moze singular piizpose to investigate this convenience store. The Trooper's testimony also lacks credibility in ability to recall or describe the natuze of the road construction, the traffic control devices employed to redirect traffic, and date such traffic control devices were utilized’ on northbound 900 West. the lack of credibility is understandable when the investigating officer is patrolling for a different purposé unmelated fo sonditions of the oad and the driving pattexp: of a suspect. G ' Agter reviewing the defendant’s photographs, the trooper first testified the cedstrnetion was not present during Hay, 2009 but later indicated the location of traffic control devices blocking lene #2 were placed 4 block avay from the minimarket at a later dete. This contradicts the physical evidence and the ‘direct testimony of the macket_ employee. The Defendant testified he way avare of the ‘tuoopex’s presence on prior oacasions and on the date in question. This zaises ‘a reasonable inference the defendant may be more alrare of hig tzavel route and his driving pattem in contrast to driving/testifying shout habite ex custom. ithe defendant's testimony is more credible than Trooper Steed because he knew his conduct and driving wag being actively observed by a police officer. The case presents one legal issue. Is the driving: pattern alleged to be a tuaffic violation? First, moving froma private driveway to the #1 lane without first positioning the automobile is not ‘practicable’ as required by state traffic laws. However, if that driving pattern did ocour, it 4s not an ‘illegal lene change’ in addition ‘to improper right turn. Troopers Steed’s opinion regarding two traffic violations is’ in error, In this casey the defendant presented direct physical evidence of the road construction preventing continuation of travel in the #2 northbound lane, ‘he traffic control devices redirect northbound traffic to the #1 lane almost immediately noxth of the convenience store’s property and parking lot exit, “Trooper Steed’s testimony is not believable and her desire to pursue an engoing departmental investigation creates a significant suspicion of the Officer’s true intent to make contact with this defendant and other patrons exiting the odnvenience store. DATED this 4” day of Mangh 2 010. fee fis. cusna 7". Salt Lake City dastice Court EXHIBIT 4 “Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Lieutenant Steve Winward FROM: Sergeant Rob Nixon DATE: 5/14/2010 SUBJECT: Corporal Lisa Steed Lt, 4 I received a declination for prosecution for Corporal bj from SLC Justice court. The ease was declined to file due to the fact thiuuthyre was insufficient evidence for the charge of DUI drugs. [looked over the found that there were many signs of impairment including odor of burat mie dilated pupils, lack of convergence, leg aid body tremors and red cqgi of the eyes. When I looked at the toxicology results, it showed negative jrugs and medications. This made me curious because of the fact that there aity signs of marijuana use. e DUI squad that every one of her DUI- subject had dilated pupils. Nearly every one had leg and body tremors, vergence and red conjunctiva. looked into 20 of her 2 -drug reports where the subject was alledgedly impaired on marij ‘the 20 of those reports, four of them had no drugs in the system at all. S showed the metabolite only and no impairing drug at all in the system. So, 1 the 20 arrests showed no impairing drug in the system. Four of them had nothing at all, Every one of them showed signs of impairment, Dilated pupils was listed on every one. Leg and body tremors was listed on approximately 80% of them. Lack of convergence was listed on nearly every one as well. On Wednesday, 5/12/10 I assisted Corporal Steed on a blood draw. Thad been curious from the findings listed above, so I made it a point to check the suspect's eyes, I did not have a pupilometer, however the eyes were obviously on the low end of normal. There was no mistaking them for dilated, I went over the report on that tonight when I got in my office. The report shows that the suspect had dilated pupils. It also showed that his hand were moving uncontrollably. The suspect was able to sit calmly while having his blood drawn, completely understand that we will get someone that shows nothing in their system from time to time, I know that there are cutoff levels that the toxicology Iab will not show if it is too low. However, I feel this is a pattern. This is something that nbttls to ~ Page 2 of 2 be addressed before defense attorneys catch on and her credibility along with the DUI squad's credibility is compromised. ‘Thank you for your time, Please contact me if you have any questions. -Sergeant Robert B, Nixon IIT EXHIBIT 5 UTAH HIGHWAY PATROL SECTION XVI DUI Squad 5681 South 320 West, Murray, UT 84107 (801) 284-5505 Fax (801) 284-5527 E mail: sect] 6@utah.gov MEMORANDUM ‘TO: Lieutenant Steve Winward FROM: Sergeant Rob Nixon DATE: 10/5/2010 ° SUBJECT: Sheri Faircloth complaint, T received a complaint on Corporal Lisa Steed resulting from an arrest she made on 3/10/2010, Corporal Steed arrested Sheri Faircloth for DUI and an improper turn. Mrs. Faircloth's complaint was that she was pulled over illegaly and then arrested without probable cause, She complained that Corporal Steed used the PBT while she was still in the vehicle and then again after she was arrested. She also stated that she felt she passed the field sobriety tests and was never warned < properly about losing her license and the other ramifications resulting from a refusal. She also was concerned that Corporal Steed had her video camera dismounted from the dash board on the initial stop and was not remounted until later. One last issue was that her mic was not turned on until later in the stop as well. I viewed the video and report on this case. I also spoke with Corporal Steed regarding the Issues at hand. In the video, It is obvious that the camera is not mounted to the windshield, It appears to be hanging from the cord. Corporal Steed does place it on the dash prior to the field sobriety tests however. Her external mic was functioning and clear upon the initial approach, However, she returned to her vehicle and removed the external-mic, leaving it in the car as she approached again. Corporal Steed advises that she does not know why she left it in the car but while it was In the car is when she had Mrs, Faircloth blow into the PBT while she was still in the vehicle, which was prior to and field sobriety tests. It is clear when Corporal Steed returns to jher vehicle and puts the external mic back on her belt. She also fixes the camera so that it can capture the field sobriety tests. She did have Mrs. Faircloth petform the field sobriety tests which from the camera vantage point, it appears she fails. She had her blow into the PBT once again at the end of the sobriety tests. Once she placed her under arrest, she did not have her blow into it again. This Is contrary to what Mrs, Faircloth writes in her statement. Corporal Steed then read the DUI admonitions word for word and requests a blood test. When Mrs, Faircloth asked what happened if she refused, Corporal Steed read the refusal admonition, word for word. Mrs. Faircloth stated "I respectfully refuse”, At this time she did not state that it was because of her fear of needles or that she would pass out. This is contrary to two things in her statement. The first being that she was not properly warned the consequences of refusing a chemical test and the second that she advised Corporal Steed that she was fearful of needles and that is why she was refusing, Once Corporal Steed obtained a warrant, she drew Mrs, Faircloth’s blood while in the vehicle. At this time, she did state that she has been known to nearly pass out when giving blood, She was very calm while saying this and said nothing more of it. She was giving Corporal Steed suggestions on where to draw the blood from. At no time did I sense that she was overly concerned with Corporal Steed drawing blood from her. There are a few issues to be dealt with here. The first being the camera not mounted on the windshield. When I spoke with Corporal Steed, she stated that It had come unglued and fell off earlier. I myself have had that happen several times to the cameras that were mounted to the windshield. T find no fault In this. The second is the use of the PBT prior to administering the field tests. This is a founded complaint through Corporal Steed’s admission and is in violation of UHP operating policy 3-3-7 by using the PBT prior to the field sobriety tests. This has been addressed in the past with Corporal Steed, I am confident that this is no longer an issue. The third is the external mic being turned off after the initial approach. 1 do find this to be an issue. ‘The external mic was on upon initial approach, However, Corporal Steed removed that mic to go hack up to the vehicle and administer the PBT. 1 feel this was a done on purpose and is in a violation’of UHP operating policy 3-3-16 by not having her audio on during the entire incident. The other issues including passing the field tests, improper notification of refusal consequences have been unfounded by viewing the video. “The last issue Is Corporal Steed drawing blood on scene stemming from a blood warrant. This issue has been addressed and Corporal Steed has been reprimanded for this earlier this year. I feel there is no reason to further discipline her as this event occurred prior to the one she was disciplined for. However It was done in violation of UHP operating policy 2-4-7 by not notifying her immediate supervisor of a blood draw subsequent ‘toa warrant and also performing that blood draw outside a secure facility. We have addressed multiple of these issues in the past. Corporal Steed was issued a letter of reprimand for doing blood draws on scene and not notifying her supervisor. I have verbally spoken with her in regards tu the PBT prior to field sobriety tests. -xt is my recommendation that she be issued a letter of counsel for having Mrs. Faircloth blow into the PBT prior to the field sobriety tests. I also recommend that she be issued a letter of counsel for removing her external mic and leaving it in her car when she went back to the suspect vehicle to administer the PBT, While these two issues have been addressed verbally, I would like to memorialize this in written form. Lat me know if you have any questions or concerns -Sergeant Rob Nixon Section 16 District A email: rnixon@utah.gov Coll: 801-664-0631 EXHIBIT 6 (Ee. + 5 Laas Department of Public Safety ‘ 33) AGED 5 D.LANCE DAVENPORT wee Conesioner Stare of Utah Utah Highway Patrol Dai Eo Sipenendnt GARY R. HERBERT Governor GREG BELL Lieutenant Governor November 3, 2010 Corporal Lisa Steed 5681 South 320 West Murray, UT 84107 RE: Notice of Intent to Recommend Discipline Corporal Steed You are hereby notified of my intent to recommend to Lieutenant Robert Anderson that you be disciplinary action, specifically a Letter of Reprimand, for violations of department policy. This recommendation is being made in accordance with DHRM Rule R477-11-1, On March 10, 2010, you made a traffic stop that resulted in the arrest of the driver for DUI. While there was probable cause to arrest the driver, there were multiple policy violations. ‘The first of which is an accusation that came from the driver that you issued the preliminary breath test prior to the field tests. You confirmed this allegation when I approached you about it. ‘The second issue is the removal of your extemal microphone after your initial approach of the vehicle. When I questioned you about the microphone being removed, you were unsure why you had removed it. ‘When you retumed to the vehicle, you fixed the camera, which had become detached, and reattached your external microphone, Subsequently, the contact with the driver when the initial PBT test was given was not captured by either audio or video recording. ‘These represent serious violations of department policy. Department of Public Safety policy 3-3-17, IL. C. states: All preliminary breath tests will be administered as the last field sobriety test, fo be used in conjunction with the standardized field sobriety tests, prior fo arrest or release of the driver, You and I have discussed the use of a preliminary breath test as a first test in the past. Although this event occurred prior to our conversations, I feel that it is necessary for you to understand the importance of your responsibility in these issues, Preliminary breath testers are a big asset to us when doing field sobriety tests. However, their purpose is not to determine if you are going to put someone through field tests, but as a last test to determine if the impairment you are seeing is coming from alcohol or possibly a drug or medication ‘Address: 4501 0.2700 W, Saltake Cty Utah 84119 Telephone: (801) 965-4538 It is mandatory that MVR. equipment operators record both audio and video portions of all police related activities. Troopers will verify that both microphones are operating properly and check for proper sound levels at the start of each shift. The appropriate microphone will be activated at all times when the M.V-R. equipment is in operation. When appropriate, troopers are encouraged to narrate the incident while recording. We are equipped with video equipment to assist us in our investigations. These videos protect us from several different types of situations. However, if they are not being used properly it is not only a clear violation of policy but can fail to fully protect you as a trooper. ‘There is no logical reason to remove your external microphone to return to the vehicle. Tt may cause one to question if it was removed on purpose to administer the preliminary breath test. The video camera falling from the windshield is understandable. That issue is not being addressed in this letter. However, as a reminder, it is your responsibility to ensure your equipment is operating correctly. Lisa, you are a very talented trooper and your work ethic is topped by none. You have no need to administer a PBT prior to tests. T encourage you to simply take the time to have the subject perform field sobriety tests and determine from there if they are impaired, You and I have also talked about the importance of video, You need to ensure that your entire video system is functioning at the start ofeach shift. You also need to ensure that you have your external microphone with you at all times. T appreciate the hard work and dedication that you show to this department and to the citizens of Utah, You bring a skill set that is very much needed in this day and age. That being said, it is imperative that you follow established laws, policies and procedures at all times. You were previously disciplined in June of this year for violating policy. It is for your failure once again to follow policy, a8 outlined in the above stated rezsons, that I am recommending that you be disciplined. In accordance with Department of Human Resource Management rule R477-L1-1, you have five (5) working days to respond in writing to Lieutenant Robert Anderson and have your reply considered concerning my recommendation that you be disciplined. If you choose not to respond or fail to respond within the allowed time flame, discipline may be imposed as recommended, Sincerely, Zr Sergeant Robert B. Nixon IIL Utah Highway Patrol, Section 16 J acknowledge receipt of this letter and understand that I have the right to respond in writing to Lt Anderson within fiv: (5) working days of receipt of this letter. eee Mel ent4 Employee signature Date Ce: Colonel Daniel Fubr, Major Michael Kuebn, Captain Mike Rapich, Lieutenant Robert Anderson, Human Resources ‘Adicess: 4501 So, 2700 W, Salt Lake ley Utah 84118 Telephone: (901) 965-1510 EXHIBIT 7 Department of Public Safety eee Conosione Utah Highway Patrol Danie ake Superntendon GARY R. HERBERT Governor GREG BELL Lieutenant Governor November 19" 2010 ‘Trooper Lisa Steed 5681 S. 320 W. Murray, UT 84107 RE: Letter of Reprimand ‘Trooper Steed: ‘You were given a letter of intent to impose discipline from Sgt. Rob Nixon on November 12" 2010, and ‘were notified that you had five working days to respond in writing before discipline is imposed. Since T have not received a response from you, I've decided to proceed with the recommended discipline in accordance with DHRM Rule R477-1]-1, You ate being issued this leter of reprimand for the reasons stated in the letter of intent ‘Trooper Steed, you are a valued member of Section 16 and I eppreciate your hard work, I'm confident you will leam from this end make every effors to avoid any further issues stated in the letter of intent. However, you should be aware that any additional incidents may result in further disciplinary action. Please be advised that in accordance with DERM Rule R477-11-1 you have the right to appeal this decision within twenty (20) working days from the date of signing this letter. If you have any questions concerning your right under the Stste's grievance procedure, please contact the Career Service Review Board at (801) 538-3088. Sincerely, Lt. Robert Anderson Utah Highway Patrol Section 16 L acknowledge receipt of this letter and understand that a copy will be placed in my official personnel file, 7s UAPCO Signarure Date Col, Daniel Fuhr, Maj. Mike Kuehn, Capt, Mike Rapich, Sgt. Rob Nixon, Personnel File |Addres: 4501 So, 2700. Sal Lake Cty Uah 84119 Telephone: (802) 965-4838 EXHIBIT 8 PRESS RELEASE Davis County Attorney’s Office April 26, 2012 Concerning Utah Highway Patrol Trooper Lisa, Steed, our office has received muitiple media inquiries. She is currently assigned, by the UHP, to patrol Davis. County. To assist all media outlets, we provide the following: ‘The Davis County Attornéy’s Office will continue to provide notices and material to defendants related to ‘Trooper Lisa Steed’s condiict and credibility as per Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. We support these decisions (cited below). They are in the interest of justice. Beyond that, our office will assess each case involving Trooper Lisa Steed individually with the following in mind: If there is sulficient evidence for a conviction completely independent of ‘Trooper Steed (we don't need her as a witness at all or only need her for minor foundational matters suck as describing an item of evidence that has verification independent of her, and we address her credibility warts in court on direct examination ourselvés), the case might continue. We do not want those who have actually violated the law to escape justice due to the credibility problems of Trooper Steed if we can prove the case independent of her. However, if Trooper Steed’s investigative or testimonial credibility is an issue at all to prove any element or constitutional component of a case (like the basis fora vehicle stop or a search), the case will be dismissed. Our obligation and duty as public prosecutors is to fairness, justice and constitutional principles, not to vindisate Trooper Steed by going forward. ‘We do not want those who are innocent, or even those who may have violated the law, to'be potential victims of the justice system based on ‘Trooper Steed’s misconduct if a case rests in whole, or in part, on her credibility. Brady v. land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963): Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). EXHIBIT 9 Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report Case # 12CA00055 Date: 06/04/2012 Investigator: Sgt. Patty Johnston Last Updated: 07/05/2012 SUSPECT Name: Lisa Steed Comments: Lisa Steed is a corporal with the Utah Highway Patrol. She is accused of committing perjury while testifying in a suppression hearing in Third District Court. WITNESS Name: Robert Nixon Comments: Robert Nixon is a sergeant with the Utah Highway Patrol. He supervised Corporal Lisa Steed for a period of time. WITNESS: Name: Robert Anderson Comments: Robert Anderson is a lieutenant with the Utah Highway Patrol. He was involved in a disciplinary process involving Corporal Lisa Steed. CASE REFERRAL Utah Highway Patrol Corporal Lisa Steed testified in a suppression hearing in March 2012. After considering the totality of testimony in this hearing, Judge Mark Koutis conchided that Steed had been “untruthful” when she testified, Because of the potential criminal liability, it was decided that the incident needed to be investigated. ‘The case was referred to the UCAO Bureau of Investigations by Utah County Attorney, Jeff Buhman. Sgt. Richard Hales and I were assigned this case. CASE ORIGINATION ‘Two DUI cases, where Corporal Lisa Steed was the arresting officer, were the basis for the court testimony in question. ‘The two cases are as follows: Case #1: On 01/02/2010, Corporal Lisa Steed pulled over Theron Alexander for not having his license plate light illuminated. Steed subsequently arrested Alexander for DUI. Alexander contested his arrest, asserting that his license plate light was illuminated and that Steed had no legal basis for the stop, ay WARNING — FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY es CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT RESTRICTED TO JUSTICE AMINISTRATION Supervisor Approval: _ tk Report Relesed To:_Diane Ort, isl Division 226013 Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report A suppression hearing was held in Third District Court in West Jordan before Judge Mark Kouris on 1/4/2011 (see item #6, page 8). Corporal Steed testified in this hearing that Alexander's license plate light was not illuminated. Steed’s video of the stop was inconclusive as to whether or not the light was on, Because there was no physical evidence, Judge Kouris relied solely on Steed’s testimony and as such, denied the motion to suppress. Following the suppression hearing, Alexander’s defense counsel, Joseph Jardine, received information about an incident in which Steed’s credibility was brought into question (Investigator’s note: According to a conversation that UCAO Sgt. Hales and I had with SLC DA Investigator Craig Watson, Jardine received this information from the SLC DA's office. According to a report generated by Watson, SLC Deputy DA Josh Player learned of Steed’s alleged indiscretion by UHP Lt. Steve Winward). ‘The alleged incident stemmed from a stop Steed made on a Sheri Faircloth, That case is detailed below. Because Steed’s integrity was in question, Judge Kouris allowed for a second suppression hearing specifically for the purpose of addressing Stecd’s credibility, ‘That hearing was held on 3/27/2012 and a continuance of that hearing was held 04/24/2012. Case #2: On 03/10/2010, Corporal Lisa Steed pulled over Sheri Faircloth for an improper left turn, Steed’s initial approach and contact with Faircloth can be heard via Steed’s extemal mic. Steed returned to her vehicle and either removed or tumed off her external mic. As such, all audio was lost. Steed’s in-car video camera had become detached from the windshield and was dangling and as such, was not capturing footage of the stop at that time. At some point, Steed was back in her vehicle and either turned the mic back on or put it back on her belt, which enabled the audio to again be heard. Steed also propped up her video camera which enabled the remained of the stop to be recorded. Faireloth was subsequently arrested for DUI. SHERI FAIRCLOTH COMPLAINT On 9/13/2010, Sheri Faircloth filed « complaint with the Utah Highway Patrol against Corporal Steed (see item #1-7). As per UHP protocol, Steed’s sergeant, Robert Nixon, was assigned to investigate the complaint. One issue of Faircloth’s complaint was that Steed used a PBT (portable breath test) prior to conducting the field sobriety tests, which is a violation of UHP policy. As part of Nixon’s investigation, he viewed Steed’s video of the stop. Upon his initial viewing of the video, Nixon concluded that a PBT had not been done prior to field sobriety tests because he had not seen ot heard this when he reviewed the stop. a WARNING ~ FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY 28 (CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT RESTRICTED 10 JUSTICE AMINISTRATION Sopevisor Approval aun Report Relesed To: _ Diane Oru Cin Division = 2726/2013, Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report INITIAL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SGT. NIXON AND CORPORAL STEED REGARDING THE FAIRCLOTH COMPLAINT ‘There is some discrepancy, or uncertainty regarding how Nixon advised Steed of the Faircloth complaint, and what was said. The accounts are as follows: Steed: While testifying at the 3/27/2012 Theron Alexander suppression hearing, Steed testified that Nixon told her about the Faireloth complaint via telephone, Nixon told her that he had watched the video and had not seen the initial PBT as alleged by Faircloth. Steed then told Nixon that the reason he had not heard the initial PBT was because she had removed her mic. She explained that she had removed her mic so that her lieutenant, Steve Winward, would not know that she had done the PBT prior to field sobriety tests. Steed also told Nixon that she did not why she had done it Steed testified that following the phone conversation with Nixon, she reviewed the case and then sent him an email disclosing the same information she had given to him on the phone regarding the purpose for removing her mic. Nixon: Nixon testified at the 4/24/2012 Theron Alexander suppression hearing, How and when he advised Steed of the Faircloth complaint was not discussed. When UCAO Sgt. Richard Hales and I interviewed Nixon, he could not remember with certainty how he notified Steed of the Faircloth complaint. He seemed to recall that he told Steed in person in the hallway outside his office. Nixon did not remember having a phone conversation with Steed about the Faircloth complaint. Nixon stated, “I don’t remember that phone call. I’m not saying the phone call wasn’t made. It was not said it was to hide it from Lt. Winward. That was not said.” However, later in the interview, Nixon expressed uncertainty as to when Steed first disclosed to him that she had taken off her mic to hide her actions from ‘Winward, THERON ALEXANDER SUPPRESSION HEARING At the Theron Alexander suppression hearing on 03/27/2012, Lisa Steed’s credibility became the determinate factor. The “mic” issue, relative to the Faircloth stop, was used to attack Steed’s credibility. The specific issue was when it was that Steed first disclosed that her reason for taking off her mic was to hide her actions from Winward. After Steed testified at this hearing, it was determined that Sgt. Nixon and Lt. Anderson needed to provide testimony. ‘The hearing was then continued to 4/24/2012 Corporal Lisa Steed testimony: When questioned by SLC DA Deputy Player, Steed recalled meeting with Sgt. Nixon and Lt, Anderson where the use of her mic was addressed. In this meeting, in an attempt to determine os WARNING ~ FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY es CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT RESTRICTED TO JUSTICE AMINISTRATION Supetvisor Approvals = LR Report Relesed To _Disne Out, Civil Division 2262019, Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report ‘why Steed’s audio wasn’t working, Lt, Anderson asked her if her microphone had fallen off her belt or if she had forgotten to put it on, Steed told Anderson “no,” and explained that she had taken the mic off of her belt while she had the subject blow into the PBT. She disclosed that she took off her mic so that Lt. Winward wouldn't know about the initial PBT. She also told Anderson that she didn’t know why she did it, she had never done it previously and that it was stupid. This was the only conversation she had with Anderson about the mic issue. Defense counsel Joseph Jardine asked Steed about the first conversation she had with ‘Nixon about her mic. Steed said she “believed” that her first conversation was via email with Nixon rather than verbal. Nixon told her that he had watched the video of the Faircloth stop. He had not seen an initial PBT and as such, Nixon felt the complaint was unfounded, At that point, Steed told him that he had not heard her initial use of the PBT because she removed her mic prior to administering the PBT. Steed further testified that the reason she gave Nixon for removing her mic was that she didn’t want Winward to know about it and that she did not know why did it Jardine addressed the memorandum of investigative findings from Sgt. Nixon to Lt. Winward dated 10/5/2010 (see item #1-5). Jardine quoted the memo, “Her external mic was fimotioning and clear upon the initial approach. However, she returned to her vehicle and removed the external mic, leaving in the car as she approached again, Corporal Steed advises that she does not know why she left it in the car.” Jardine noted that there was no further explanation in the memo regarding Winward. He asked, “So you’re saying Nixon got it wrong in his report?” Steed replied, “Our complete conversation wasn’t in it. Yes,” In the same memo detailing his investigative findings, Nixon discusses the issues of potential reprimand. He states, “I do find this to be an issue. The external mix was on upon initial approach. However, Corporal Steed removed that mic to go to back to the vehicle to administer the PBT. I feel this was done on purpose and is in violation of UHP policy.” Jardine asked Steed why Nixon would state that he believed it was done on purpose if she had told him that she did it on purpose. She answered, “That's probably why he thinks it, is “cause I told him Idid it. I would assume.” Jardine then addressed Nixon’s Intent to Recommend Discipline dated 11/3/2010 (see item #1-2). Jardine quoted “,..The second issue is the removal of your microphone after your initial approach of the vehicle. When I questioned you about the microphone being removed, you were unsure why you removed it.” Jardine asked Steed if this account was correct. She replied, “Half correct. Yeah.” Jardine continued quoting the document, “There is no logical reason for you to remove your external microphone. It may cause one to question if you removed it on purpose to administer the preliminary breath test.” Steed acknowledged that she did not respond (in writing) to the statement and clarify that she had in fact removed it on purpose oe WARNING ~ FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY 38 CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT RESTRICTED. [ICE AMINISTRATION Supervisor Approval Report RelesedTo:_Disne Oru pivson 212672013 Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report Jardine stated, “And so when Nixon states, “There is no logical reason fo remove the microphone. Tt may question you removed in on purpose’, he’s just out there in left field.” Steed emphatically responded, “He knows I removed it on purpose, I told him I removed it on purpose.” Player then asked Steed for a better timeline. Steed told him that her first communication with anyone at UHP regarding the mic incident was when Nixon informed her of the Faircloth complaint. She recalled that the initial part of the conversation was actually via telephone. S then pulled up the case and remembered that she had removed her mic, She then emailed Ni: told him that she had removed the mic, and explained that she had done this so that Winward would not know about the PBT and that she did not know why she did it. The only other conversation she had with anyone at UHP was when she met with Nixon and Anderson on 11/3/2010. Player addressed a memo written by Steed to Nixon dated 11/3/2010. Steed explained that Nixon called her the night prior, told her that they were going to have a mecting with Anderson the following day, and asked her to write a memo in regard to the Faircloth incident, Steed acknowledged that in her memo, she discussed the issue with her mic, but did not provide an explanation as to why she removed Sgt. Robert Nixon testimony: Deputy DA Player asked Nixon to describe what happens when he receives a complaint. Nixon said that he reviews the video and reports and asks the trooper fo respond to the complaint in writing. He then reviews everything and documents his findings. Nixon acknowledged that he worked the Faircloth complaint in the manner described, Nixon is the one who advised Steed about the Faircloth complaint; he could not recall the date. Nixon relayed that Steed responded to the complaint via memo to him (see item #1-6). Both Steed’s memo to Nixon and his Letter of Intent to Recommend Discipline (“Letter of Intent”) are dated 11/03/2010 (item #1-2). Nixon does not know which document was written first nor if he had received Steed’s memo prior to him writing the Letter of Intent. Nixon documented his findings of the Faircloth investigation in a memo to Lt. Winward dated 10/5/2010, In regard to this document, Jardine asked Nixon if he included Steed’s explanation as to why she left her mic in the car, The explanation that Steed gave to Nixon, which he included in his memo, was that she did not know why she had left her mic in the car. Jardine asked Nixon if Steed gave him any alternate explanation (referring to the explanation involving Winward) for removing her mic, prior to her signing the Letter of Intent (signed by Steed and dated 11/12/2010). Nixon replied affirmatively, stating that Steed had given him another explanation, However, because that alternate explanation was not documented in his Letter of Intent, Nixon deduced that Steed must have given him that explanation after he — WARNING ~ FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY ‘age (CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT RESTRICTED 10 JUSTICE AMINISTRATION, Supevisor Approval J Report Relensod To: _Diane Oru, Ci ion 2060013 Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report ‘wrote his letter dated 1173/2010 (presumably at the meeting on that same date attended by Nixon, Anderson, and Steed). Jardine then commented, “So after you wrote the letter, then an explanation came.” Nixon answered, “I don’t recall the exact timeline, but... yeah, I don’t exactly recall when it was, but if I get an explanation, I put it in the letter. So { would assume that.” Nixon acknowledged that the alternate explanation was not in his letter. Jardine commented, “And so, you would have written your report with all the correct information you had at that point.” Nixon answered, “ would hope so.” At that point, Nixon was excused from the stand, but was later recalled after Lt. Anderson testified. Deputy DA Player asked Nixon what Steed told him when he initially asked for a response regarding the removal of the mic. Nixon replied, “She wasn’t sure why she had done es Player then asked, “So if Trooper Steed had said that she told you that, prior to November 3", is that inconsistent with your recollection of what occurred in this case?” After several moments, Nixon responded, 1 don’t know if it's inconsistent with it..it’s inconsistent with my mode of operation, But it’s... ’d have to assume again on that. I would assume that if she told me prior to me writing this Letter of Intent it would have been included in my Letter of Intent, But I don’t recall an exact date when she told me. No. But again, like I said, I would assume it would be in there if I would have been told about it prior to the Letter of Intent being written, Jardine then told Nixon thet if Steed had told him prior to him writing the letter, he would not have said, “There is no logical reason for you to remove your extemal mic.” Nixon agreed. Nixon also acknowledged that initially Steed fold him she didn’t know why she did it, and then later told him a different scenario, Lt, Robert Anderson testimony: Anderson testified that he provided Steed with the Letter of Reprimand (see item #1-1) Although Steed bad the opportunity to contest it, she did not. ‘The Letter of Reprimand was based on Nixon’s Letter of Intent. Anderson acknowledged that Steed provided an “alternate” explanation for removing her mic (“alternate” meaning to hide her action from Winward). He could not recall the date. Anderson reasoned that he did not mention the alternate explanation in his Letter of Reprimand because that letter is derived from the Letter of Intent, page 6 WARNING ~ FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY CONTENTS OP THIS REPORT RESTRICTED TO JUSTICE AMIN N Supervisor Approval Report Relesed To: _ Diane Orctt, Civil Division 22672013, Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report ‘Anderson noted that had Steed admitted that she took off her mie to hide her violation of UHP policy, prior to the issuance of the reprimand letter, it would have been included in the Lotter of Intent. Jardine asked if they could assume that that information was not available to the writer of the Letter of Intent. Anderson stated, “I’m not sure that I could assume that or not, ’m simply saying I don’t recall a time line when that came to light. So I’m not really sure of when.” Oral argument/Judge Kouris ruling: Following the completion of testimony, Judge Kouris asked Jardine and Player how they would like to proceed. He noted that it was difficult when some witnesses testified one day and others testified another day with several weeks in between, He offered to give them time to review the record of the proceedings when Steed testified, or to proceed at that time. They opted to proceed, Jardine stated that the key point was how well the court recalled the conversation and whether they agreed as to what Steed testified to in the last hearing. Jardine stated that the real issue in contention was when Steed disclosed the alternate explanation, He recalled that Steed testified that she told Anderson and Nixon from the very beginning that she took the mic off so that Winward wouldn’t find out; Judge Kouris agreed, Player said he had pulled the recording and that Steed’s testimony was that she provided the alternate explanation, that she didn’t want to get into trouble, sometime prior to November 3%. Judge Kouris asked, “That was her testimony? And that would be in conflict with what we heard today?” Player replied that they (Nixon and Anderson) testified that although they don’t remember specifically, had she told them before November 3", it would have been contained in those documents Judge Kouris then stated that it was a stipulated fact that what Steed represented at the last hearing was not consistent with the testimony of Anderson and Nixon. Judge Kouris stated that based upon the fact that “she may have not been entirely accurate” when she testified, Jardine would then argue that Judge Kouris could not believe Steed when she said that Alexander's license plate light was out Judge Kouris stated, “Would I believe, based on this “indiscretion” that has been outlined here in court, is her credibility so unbelievable that at this point in time I don’t believe that that’s something that can go forward? I guess is what I’m confronted with.” After some additional commentary, the judge denied the motion to suppress and noted that the credibility issue should be decided by a jury. Judge Kouris then asked Player to consider that when Steed was confronted with the issue of the microphone being taken off, she said that she didn’t know. Judge Kouris reasoned that this was probably the “softest way” for her to admit the mic was off, knowing that admitting she did it to hide it from a superior would result in a more dire consequence. Further, Judge an WARNING ~ FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY Ne CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT RESTRICTED TO JUSTICE AMINISTRATION Supecvisor Approval tik Report Relesod To: _Diane Oven isl Division 2292013 Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report Kouris told Player that Steed then, under oath, testified that she told Nixon and Anderson before a certain date, knowing that this assertion was false, Judge Kouris asked Player, “Based on those two things (noted above), if in fact both of those two things are accurate, do you believe that her credibility is strong enough to survive a motion to suppress?” When Player struggled to answer, Judge Kouris asked, “Why did she tell her commanding officers that she did not know why she took her mic off when it’s “apparent” she did know why? Player replied, “I think to stay out of trouble.” Judge Kouris noted that that ‘would mean that Steed’s action was “calculated.” Judge Kouris asked Player if he agreed that Steed took the stand and indicated (from the beginning) that she had informed her commanding officers that the reason she took off her mic ‘was because it was against protocol to give the PBT prior to field sobrieties, Yet, the documents show that she did not tell them initially. Player responded, “The conclusion that I draw from that is that Sgt. Nixon had not heard that before he wrote his letter.” Judge Kouris stated, “And yet she claimed in her testimony that in fact she had informed him of that before he wrote his letter.” Player concluded, “It is an inconsistency, that’s for sure.” Judge Kouris asked Player if he believed that that damaged Steed’s credibility to the point that he could no longer believe her when she said, under oath, that Alexander's license plate light was out. Player acknowledged that it “would be a difficult case for the state to win.” Judge Kouris then granted the motion to suppress, citing that Steed’s testimony “wasn’t truthful.” POINTS OF CLARIFICATION Sgt. Nixon and Lt, Anderson testified almost a month after Lisa Steed testified in the Alexander suppression hearing. At the conclusion of testimony, Judge Kouris asked Jardine and Player if they wanted some time to review Steed’s testimony before they proceeded. It was decided to go forward at that time as the three concurred at to what her testimony had been, The following are some points of clarification: Anderson: At the conclusion of testimony, Jardine told Judge Kouris that Steed had testified that she told Anderson and Nixon from the very beginning that she took the mic off so that Winward wouldn't find out; Judge Kouris agreed with this representation of Steed’s testimony. Player's account of Steed’s testimony was that she provided the alternate explanation that she didn’t want to get into trouble, sometime prior to the November 3" meeting, Both of these accounts are inaccurate in regard to Anderson. Anderson testified that when he met with Steed (on 11/3/2010), she told him that she took off her mic to hide her actions from Winward. This was the only time she spoke with Anderson about the incident. As such, Anderson's testimony did not contradict or conflict with Steed’s testimony. In actuality, ee WARNING ~ FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY a8! CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT RESTRICTED TO JUSTICE AM Suparvisoe Approvals _ R Report Relesed To: _ Diane Out, Civil Division 22672013, Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report ‘Anderson's testimony corroborated what Steed had testified to in regard to her sole interaction with him in which the incident was discussed, In addition, during their meeting, Anderson gave Steed a way out, asking her if her mie had fallen off or if she had forgotten to put it on, Steed could have easily lied and latched on to one of these excuses, but she did not. She told the truth. She confessed to Anderson that she took the mic off intentionally to conceal her policy violation from Winward. She also told him that she did not know why she chose to take off her mic and acknowledged that it was a stupid choice. ‘Timing: The Faircloth complaint was made a year and a half prior to Steed, Nixon, and Anderson testifying in the Alexander suppression hearing. During that hearing, Judge Koutis asked counsel if it was possible, in regard to Steed’s testimony, that she forgot rather than having some sort of “devious intent.” Jardine replied that anything was possible (even though he did not believe that she simply forgot). INTERVIEWS/ATTEMPT! ED INTERVIEWS Interview with Corporal Lisa Steed Corporal Lisa Steed agreed to be interviewed and came to the Utah County Attorney's Office, Bureau of Investigations on 6/14/2012. Steed was cooperative and felt that she could exonerate herself by talking with Sgt. Hales and me, She was anxious to explain her side of the story. Steed’s attomey, Greg Skordas, arrived shortly before Steed and asked to speak with her privately prior to her being interviewed, After speaking with his client, Mr, Skordas told us that he did not want Steed to make a statement, He reaffirmed that Steed was ready and willing to make a statement and wanted to cooperate with the investigation. However, it was Mr. Skordas’s desire that she not be interviewed. Interview with Sgt. Robert Nixon Sgt. Richard Hales and I interviewed Sgt. Nixon on 5/31/2012. Nixon first got acquainted with Corporal Lisa Steed when he supervised her on the DUI squad, Nixon told us only worked with Steed nine or ten months. He described Steed as one of the most proficient, hardworking people he had ever met “by far.” On 9/27/2010, Nixon was assigned to investigate the Sheri Faircloth complaint against Steed, On 03/27/2012, Steed testified in 3 District Court that Nixon called her with his initial findings of the Faircloth investigation. Nixon allegedly told Steed that he had not seen any inappropriate action by Steed in the video of the Faircloth stop, Steed then disclosed to Nixon =. WARNING ~ FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY 88 CONTENTS OF TH 1 |CTHD TO JUSTICE AMINISTRATION Supervisor Approval - LR Report Relesod To: _ Diane Ore, Cul Division 27292013. Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report that he had not heard her commit the offense in question because she had taken off her mic. Nixon does not recall that phone conversation, According to Steed, it was during this phone conversation that she disclosed to Nixon that she took off her mic so that Winward wouldn’t find out that she did the PBT (prior to doing field sobriety tests). Steed also told Nixon that she did not know why she took off her mie as it was really stupid, Nixon responded, “I don’t remember that phone call. I'm not saying the phone call wasn't made. It was not said it was to hide it from Lt, Winward, ‘That was not said.” Nixon asserted that if Steed would have told him about hiding her actions from Winward, he is confident that he would have included that in his Letter of Intent to Recommend Discipline. He stated, “No question, it would have been in my letter.” ‘Nixon believes, but is not certain, that the first time Steed disclosed that she had taken off her mic to hide the PBT from Winward was when he and Anderson issued her the Letter of Intent (11/3/2010). Nixon was not sure how he notified Steed of this complaint, but believes he had a face to face conversation with Steed in the hallway outside of his office. Nixon explained that there is no set protocol regarding how a trooper is to be informed of a complaint. The trooper is simply notified and then given the opportunity to respond. In her testimony, Steed stated that when Nixon called her to notify her of the Faircloth complaint, Nixon asked Steed to respond. Steed asserted that she then responded via email During our interview, Nixon went through his (saved) emails on his laptop and did not find any such email from Steed. Nixon was certain that he would have recalled receiving that email and would have saved it, He stated, “I would recall it and it would have changed my investigation at that point, if | would have known throughout that whole time that she was doing it to purposely hide it from a lieutenant. It would have changed my investigation.” Later in the interview, ‘Nixon stated that he could not say for certain that there is no such email, but he could not recall Steed sending him one. Nixon issued a memorandum to Lt, Winward on 10/5/2010 in which he reported his findings regarding the Faircloth complaint. In his memorandum, he requested that Steed be issued a Letter of Counsel, which is a step below a Letter of Reprimand. Nixon told us, “If I would have known that she was purposely removing a mic to hide it from a lieutenant, I would have never recommended a Letter of Counsel ever on something like that.” I then quoted from Nixon’s Letter of Intent to Recommend Discipline: “The second issue is the removal of your external microphone after your initial approach of the vehicle. When I questioned you about the microphone being removed, you were unsure why you removed it” Nixon acknowledged that the verbiage suggests that he was not aware that Sieed removed her oe WARNING ~ FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY bi (CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT RESTRICTED TO JUSTICE AMINISTRATION Supervisor Approval —— re Report Relesed To: Diane Ore, Civil Division = 27262013. Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report mic to hide her actions from Winward. Nixon acknowledged that if he knew Steed had removed her mic to hide the PBT from Winward, it would certainly have been in his report. Nixon relayed that when he first watched the video of the Faireloth stop, he thought her complaint against Steed was “bogus,” as there is no audio indicating that the initial PBT was given. Nixon noted that he heard Steed’s initial approach and her return to her vehicle. She then administered the field sobriety tests and had Faircloth blow into the PBT at the conclusion of the tests, Upon further review, Nixon realized that there was a period of time that sounded as if Steed’s mic had been taken off, When he asked Steed about why her mic had been tuned off, she told him that she did not know why. T told Nixon that Steed testified that during her initial conversation with him regarding the removal of her mic, she told him that she did not want Winward to know about the PBT and she didn’t know why she did it, After thoughtful pause, Nixon stated, “That’s not accurate, I don’t believe.” Nixon theorized that because the event occurred sometime ago, perhaps Steed got her timeline “messed up.” He said that he cannot see Steed “bold face lying on the stand over something like that.” Interview with Lt. Robert Anderson On 7/2/2012, Sgt. Hales interviewed Lt. Robert Anderson, In addition, Hales received an 1102 statement from Anderson prior to this interview (item #7). In October and November 2010, Lt Anderson was assigned as a Section Commander for UHP in Salt Lake County. He was also temporally assigned as the Commander over the DUI Squad, filling in for Lt. Winward, who out of town for an extended period of time for training, Before Winward left town, he briefed Anderson on an on-going administrative investigation involving Corporal Lisa Steed. In the briefing, Winward advised Anderson that Sgt. ‘Nixon had completed the investigation. A Letter of Intent to Recommend Discipline, written by Nixon, had been sent up the chain of command and to human resources and had been approved to be issued, Anderson read the Letter of Intent and agreed with the action. In regard to the reprimand, Anderson had two meetings with Steed. On 11/3/2010, Anderson and Nixon met with Steed and issued the Letter of Intent to Recommend Discipline. After the appeal period had expired, Anderson authored and issued the Letter of Reprimand for Steed. The letter was dated 11/19/2010, During one of the two meetings with Steed, Anderson remembered that Steed acknowledged that the real reason for taking off her microphone during the Faireloth stop was to hide the early use of the PBT from Winward. At that time, Anderson believed that the purpose WARNIN Page 11. a — FOR LAW ENFORCEM! S REPORT RESTRICTED TO JUSTICE AMI ENT ONLY Supervisor Approval rm Report Relesed Tur Diane Oral, isl Division =27262013 Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report of Steed’s disclosure was to “set the record straight” for the disciplinary process, (Investigator’s note: In Anderson’s 1102 statement, he notes that during this meeting, Steed turned to Nixon and disclosed that she had taken off her mic to hide her actions from Winward).. Anderson explained that there were several administrative issues going with Steed during that period of time. He had been assigned to conduct another investigation involving Steed’s arrest of a man on motorized scooter; it was later determined that the man had a medical issue and was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Anderson was working toward getting the Faircloth issue resolved so that he could move on to this other complaint, Anderson explained that because of the progressive discipline policy, he wanted each complaint investigated separately. Because of his need to move on fo the next issue, Steed’s admission of the real reason for the removal of her microphone during the Faitcloth arrest was not particularly significant, Anderson simply wanted to get the action done for the progressive discipline process and to have it documented in the event that further action was needed in the future, Hales asked Anderson what his reaction would be if Trooper Steed had testified in court that she had told Nixon and Anderson from the very beginning of the process the real reason for the mic removal was to hide from Winward, Anderson stated, “That would be untruthful.” (Investigator’s note: Steed did not testify that she told Anderson from the beginning. She only testified that she told Nixon from the onset). INVESTIGATIVE FOLLOW-UP Steed testified that after Nixon advised her of the Faircloth complaint, she pulled up the case and then responded to Nixon via email. She asserted that in her email, she told Nixon that she had intentionally removed her mic in order to conceal the initial PBT from Winward, For obvious reasons, it was important to locate this email as it could have potentially been an important piece of evidence in this investigation. I asked UCAO Sgt, Mark Dell’ Ergo to contact the state to see if they could locate the email in question. Sgt. Dell’Ergo contacted Loren Snodgrass with the Utah Department of Technology which handles the state’s GroupWise accounts. Snodgrass relayed that the UP only archives their emails for two weeks, Because it has been well over two years since the alleged email was sent, there is no way to determine if this email was sent as Steed asserts TIMELINE ‘The following is a brief timeline of events: 1/2/2010 Steed arrests Theron Alexander for DUI 3/10/2010 Steed arrests Sheri Faircloth for DUL a WARNING ~ FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY sa CONTENTS OF TH ESTRICTED TO JUSTICE AMINISTR/ Supervisor Approval: __ LR 7 Report Released To: Diane Orcs, Civil Division 296 Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report ‘5/14/2010 Notice of Intent to Recommend Discipline is given to Steed from Nixon. This stems from an incident unrelated to Faircloth, Steed is being disciplined for not calling out her stop, for performing a non-consensual blood draw roadside, and for not calling for backup. 6/1/2010 Steed received a Letter of Reprimand from Winward, (Note that the Faircloth stop ‘occurred prior to this discipline for a different incident). 9/8/2010 The City Weekly article was published. A slew of complaints against Steed ensued 9/13/2010 Sheri Faireloth filed a complaint against Steed with the UHP. 9/27/2010 Winward assigned the Faircloth complaint to Nixon. Unknown Nixon contacted Steed and advised her of the complaint Unknown Steed pulled up the Faircloth complaint and then emailed a response to Nixon. (According to Steed it was through one or both of this communications that she disclosed to Nixon that she had removed her mic intentionally s0 as to hide the initial PBT from Winward. She also explained that she did not know why she had done this and that it was stupid. 10/05/2010 Nixon submits his investigative findings of the Faircloth complaint to Winward via Memorandum: Sheri Faircloth complaint 11/2/2010 Nixon contacted Steed and advised her that she would be meeting with him and Anderson the following day. Nixon requested that she respond in writing in regard to the Faircloth complaint. 11/3/2010 Steed composed a memorandum to Nixon regarding the Faircloth complaint. 11/3/2010 Steed meets with Anderson and Nixon to discuss Nixon’s Letter of Intent to Recommend Discipline. Steed discloses both explanations for the removal of her mic. 11/12/2010 Steed signs and dates the Letter of Intent to Recommend Discipline. She also signs and post-dates the Letter of Reprimand and she did not intend to dispute the reprimand. w4/2011 The Theron Alexander suppression hearing is held in 3" District Court. Judge Kouris denies motion 3/27/2012 Subsequent suppression hearing is held to establish Steed’s level of credibility Steed and Alexander testify. 4/24/2012 Continuance of the March suppression hearing. Nixon and Alexander testify. Judge Kouris grants the suppression and the case is dismissed. SALT LAKE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY INVESTIGATION During the Alexander suppression hearing, reference is made to the SLC DA’s investigation and reports. [ obtained the reports and found that the investigation consisted of two phone calls, Both reports were written by DA investigator Craig Watson. Phone call to Lt. Steve Winward: The first phone call was made on 4/19/2011, The call made by SLC DA Chief Deputy Blake Nakamura, Deputy DA Josh Player, and Investigator = WARNING ~ FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY 'B« CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT RESTRICTED TO JUSTICE AMINISTRATION Supervisor Approval MW Report Released To:__Diane Ora, Civil Division = 226013 Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report ‘Craig Watson to Lt. Steve Winward. ‘This phone call was the result of a comment that Winward hhad made recently to Player. Winward told Player that Corporal Lisa Steed had made a traffic stop in which she removed her wireless mic after her initial approach and that her video camera had “fallen” from its mount. As such, there was no video or audio of a PBT that Steed gave to the driver of the vehicle prior to Steed conducting field sobriety tests. ‘This is a violation of UHP policy. In addition, Winward told Player that Steed admitted to Sgt, Robert Nixon that she removed her mic intentionally during the stop to conceal the fact that she was violating policy. ‘The phone call made to Winward by the SLC DA's office was to determine if this was just speculation by Nixon or if there were other facts and evidence to confirm or support this allegation (Apparently, it was then decided to follow-up with Sgt. Nixon). Phone call to Sgt. Robert Nixon: On 5/4/2011, SLC Deputy DA Player and Investigator Watson called Sgt. Robert Nixon. Player asked Nixon about the Faircloth stop, specifically the portion of the stop when neither Steed’s audio nor video were working as designed. Steed told Nixon that her video had fallen from its mount and that she did not know why she had removed her microphone. Player asked Nixon if there was a time she offered an explanation for why she had removed her mic. Nixon relayed that Steed disclosed in a meeting that she removed her mic to avoid getting into trouble for violating the policy regarding the PBT test. STATE STATUTE AND PROBABLE CAUSE. False or inconsistent material statements, Utah Code Ann, §76-8-502 A person is guilty of a felony of the second degree if in any official proceeding: (1) He makes a false material statement under oath or affirmation or swears or affirms the truth of a material statement previously made and he does not believe the statement to be true; or (2) He makes inconsistent material statements under oath or affirmation, both within the period of limitations, one of which is false and not believed by him to be true. False or inconsistent statements, Utah Code Ann. §76-8-503 A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if (1) (a) he makes a false statement under oath or affirmation or swears or affirms the truth of the statement previously made and he does not believe the statement to be true if: (i) the falsification ocours in an official proceeding, or is made with a purpose to mislead a public servant in performing his official fanctions; or Probable cause: In order to establish probable cause that Corporal Lisa Steed made a false or inconsistent statement, the above statutes requires one to show (and eventually prove : WARNING ~ FOR LAW ENFOR( Page 14 CONTENTS OF TINS REPORT REST s CEMENT ONLY JUSTICE AMINISTRATION tor Approval: 1k Report Rslesed To _Diane Ore, Civil Divisio Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report ‘beyond a reasonable doubt) that Stecd believed that the statement she made in court was untrue, The statute does not require one to prove that Steed lied, It requires one to prove what Steed believed, In attempting to determine if Steed did not believe that her statement was true, one must consider the following: It is apparent that when Nixon wrote the two documents in regard to Steed removing her mic (the 10/5/2010 memorandum of investigative findings regarding the Sheri Faireloth complaint and the Letter of Intent to Recommend Discipline), he did not know about the explanation involving Winward. However, he testified that he would have to “assume” that Steed did not tell him prior to him writing the documents, When Jardine asked Nixon if would put all the available information in his letter, Nixon replied that he “would hope so,” In Nixon’s interview, I told him that Steed testified that (from the beginning), the reason she gave him for removing her mic was that she did not want Winward to know about it and she didn’t know why she did it. After thoughtful pause, Nixon stated, “That's not accurate, I don’t believe.” Nixon expressed uncertainty at times, both in his testimony and during his interview, in regard to when Steed disclosed the “Winward explanation.” CONCLUSION On 3/10/2010, Corporal Lisa Steed arrested Sheri Faircloth for DUL. During that stop, Steed removed her microphone to conceal her initial use of the PBT. Steed knew that using the PBT prior to conducting field sobriety tests was against UHP policy. On 3/27/2012, Steed testified in the Theron Alexander suppression hearing that she had removed her mic to hide the initial PBT from her lieutenant, Steve Winward, She testified that she told her sergeant, Robert Nixon, from the beginning, that she had removed her mic specifically so that Winward would not know about the PBT and that she did not know why she had done it Steed also testified that she gave the same explanation to her then lieutenant, Robert Anderson, during the only conversation he had with her about the incident, On 4/24/2012, Sgt. Nixon testified that he could not recall for certain when Steed told him that the reason for removing her mic was to hide the PBT from Winward, He affirmed that he would have included this information in the two documents he wrote concerning the incident if Steed had provided that explanation prior to Nixon writing the documents. On that same date, Lt. Anderson testified that Steed disclosed the information involving ‘Winward when he spoke with her on one occasion about the incident. WARNING ~ FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY IIS REPORT RESTRICTED TO JUSTICE AMINISTRATION, Supervisor Approval a Repowt "To: _ inte ret, Civil Divsion22672013 Utah County Attorney’s Office Summary Report ‘After taking all testimony into consideration, Judge Kouris decided that Steed had not been truthful when she testified. ‘This investigation stemmed from that decision. A criminal investigation was warranted and referred the case to this office, This investigation is complete and will now be referred to Utah County Attomey Jeff Buhman, who will send his findings to Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill for final disposition. Pass WARNING ~ FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY iS CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT RESTRICTED TO JUSTICK AMINISTRATION Supervisor Approval JL Report se To: _Diane Oreut, Civil Divison =2262013 EXHIBIT 10 GRUG 8. LAW, PLLC GREG 8, LAW #11817 5258 8, Pinemont Dr, Ste, B-110 ‘Murray, Utah 84123 (B01) 261-6228 Telephone (801) 261-6045 Facsimile Attomey for Defendant c FILED once JUN 2.0 2012 Layton District Court RE CElVEy tag 2 IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT - FARMINGTON IN AND FOR DAVIS COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH STATE OF UTAH Plaintiff, vs. STEPHANIE MICHELE NIEDER, DOB, 10/28/1959, Defendant KINDINGS OF FACT AND. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ORDER. CASE NO. 111700161 |, JUDGE ROBERT DALE ‘This matter comes before the Coutt on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, The ‘State Of Utah was presont and represented by Rick Westmoreland. The defendant was present and represented by Grog Law, 1. The defendant attacks the reasonableness of the initial traffic stop. ‘Trooper Steed was traveling Northbound on Redwood Rd, in North Salt Lake City, Davis County, Utah; the defendant was traveling Southbound on Redwood Rd, This is a two-lane road, one lane of travel each direction, Trooper Steed testified that the defendant crossed over the center line as their vehicles passed, nearly striking the trooper’s outside rearview mirror. ‘The trooper further testified that she observed the defindant’s vehicle in her rearview mirror Fudings of Pact and Conclusions of Law: STEPHANIE NIEDER 1 ‘continue over the center line into the oncoming trafic lane. ‘The video evidence from Trooper Stoed’s dash camera shows the defendant’s truck touching the center line, ‘Thiet is uo video evidence of the alleged violation of crossitig into oncoining traffic because this was behind the trooper’s patrol car and not captured on.the video, However, the Court believes that touching ‘the oshfer line is outside the designated lane of travel and therefore rules that the initial traftie stop and detention of the defendant was proper and justified. 2, "The defendant attacks the warrantless arrést of deféndadt and subsequent search of her vehicle as lacking the necessary probable cause, ‘The defendant attached the credibility of Trooper Steed citing inconsistenties between Ler testimoby during the preliminary heating before Judge Coniors’ and her testimony before this Court during the ovidentiary heating on defendant's Motion to. Suppress Eviderive, The defendant further questioned the credibility of the trooper regarding her training and hr faihure to follow the accepted protocol regarding DUI investigations in general and DUI drug ‘investigations specifically. Trooper Steed’s credibility was also attacked because her testimony was not supported by the video evidence regarding her observations of thé defeadaitt's hands ‘moving uncontrollably 2s well as her-performance on the administered field sobriety tests, Also questioned by the defendant was Trooper Steed's testimony’ regarding the use of her microphone for recording the audio portion of the dash camerd video. ‘Trooper Steed's testimony between the preliminary heating and evidentiary hearing ctianged as to why there was xno audio recording of the defendant's stop; she also acknowledged that she had previously been ‘reprimanded by the Utak Highway Patrol (U.HLP.) fot violating the policy regarding Mobile Findings of act nd Conslsions of Law: STEPHANIENDEDER, ~ c Video Recording Equipment and she knowingly violated that sarhe departmental policy on the date of the defendant's stop by not having her wireless body-mic activated. ‘The Coutt reviewed the detailed written motions and memorendums filed by the parties and also reviewed the testimony of the preliminary hearing in its analysis of defendant's motion, The Cont felt that Trooper Steed's testimony vas exaggerated in an effort to support anid sustain her decision to arrest the defendant, These exaggerations cause the Court to patis¢ and have convents as they seemed to go beyond what the Court observed on the video. ‘The Court further finds there was very inconsistent testimony between the preliminary hearing and the evidentiary: _ heating, specifically as to the reason there was tio audio récording of the traffic stop, ‘The Cott finds the exaggerations and iiconsistencies go hand-it-glove with respett to thie credibility of the Trooper. Overall, the Court did not feel the Trooper'was credible and questions the alleged ‘facts leading up to the warrantless arrést of the defendant, 3. Conclusion, This Court does not find thiere is sufficient probable causo to justify te warrantless arrest ant! grants the defondan’’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, Dated this LE day of June, 2012. Approved as to form end content; Rick Westmorland Deputy Davis County Attomey ‘Findings of act end Coneuslons of Lave STEPHANIE NIEDER CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Loreby certify that on this /%/ day of June, 2012, Lansiled, first class, postage pre- paid and/or faxed’ e true. and correct copy of the foregoing unsigned Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law/ORDER to tite following: © “ Cleck of Court SECOND DISTRICT COURT 800 West State Street P.O. Box 769. Farmington, UT 84025 (801) 447-3800 ‘Telephone (801) 447-3881 Facsimile Rick Westmoreland. DAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 800 West State Street Farmington, UT 84025 (B01) 451-4300 Telephone (801) 451-4328 Fecsimile Ftings of Pat and Conclusions of Lave STEPHANIE NIEDER EXHIBIT 11 Utah County Attorney’s Office Voluntary Statement Name : Lt. Robert Anderson UMP. Date ‘Time:__1057 Hes, ‘Address:__450} South 2700 West Salt Lake City Ut84114. Phone:_801 381-4933 Com, _(ovk) City:_Salt Lake s 8 NOTICE: Pursuant to Section 76-8-504.5, Utah Code Annotated, 1953 as amended, you are nc ied that statements you fre about to make may be presented 10 a magistrate or judge in liew of your sworn testimony at a preliminary This statement is in reference to my interaction, as a Section Commander, with Trooper Lisa Steed during the time period of Late October 2010 through early November 2010. During this time period ‘Trp. Steed was assigned to Section #16 (DUI Squad) and I was assigned as a section commander over Section #4 Salt Lake County. I was also helping run the DUI Squad while Lt. Winward was out-of - state in a training course, Vhen I was first briefed on all the Section 16 (DUI Squad) issues Lt Winward told me, via phone, that an investigation had been completed on a citizen complaint against Trp. Steed. I was told Sgt. Rob Nixon completed a letter of intent and that it had been approved to issue. I was never involved in any part of this investigation, I reviewed Sgt Nixon’s investigation and finding on the Letter of Intent to Discipline and agreed with his findings. Major Mike Rapich also reviewed the findings and approved the letter. Sgt Nixon issued the letter to Trp, Steed and after the 5 day appeal time period I completed the disciplinary process when I issued Trp. Steed the formal Letter of Reprimand. During one of the two meetings to issue Trp. Steed the two letters she did turn to Sgt Nixon and tell him the reason why she left her in-car video camera microphone in her vehicle was because she did not ‘want to get in trouble with Lt, Winward, | am not sure of which meeting this was stated but I felt, at the time, she was just trying to clear up facts for the disciplinary process. Again, I am not sure which meeting this was discussed in, During the above stated time period I saw Trp. Steed two times and both times she was off-duty, and directed to report to the office for the letter appointments. . A couple of days after the letters were issued she was transferred to UHP Section #3. DATED this_ 2 day of Z\o5 EXHIBIT 12 Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive - The Salt Lake Tribune Page 1 of 4 Marea, 002,203] Ls Up 047 om Utah officials move to fire controversial trooper Lisa Steed Probe + Lisa Stood isgoing o appeal the terinaton "The Utah ghvay Pte as ban th proces offing Cl Li Seed ber ‘soon Weed ‘ra ac been vesting Sted ice Ap when td i Se ake ‘county and one in Dvi Gaunt ound seh bees unten th was Then last monty Te St lake base epred 0 a 20:0 mon ich “foration beteon Stu eves reports an lboestory reals. sever of 20 csus Nn sid ho viene, too sts showed das rested Saad fer DUI deny he emmani of rugs parathion ety he gl nd ter bs adn agin te yn, \GUP aot a eter No sto tod eines wil be fd ‘Std ob hands cnt berg a eating conmsioner ft nh Deprtnento ai Sat Lance Depa. “Shows ero and se would eo ke namin “She con wing ob resined or moved tn diflere Sond sid UH helio ele the oestng Such esis atthe frst sap nan pea grocer abi ttt ome fing ent, ‘employes inlaes 9 bear sn adminsetive ba Ben tht proces td Stenting sh col fs nit coreg the int Stor cid the ta fom UH eat Hens tent ne of he udgas ‘nd healing ae con no loner encour Te eter acute Stn fata wevorbie ple peeps fhe UI, Sonia ‘al. ayn al woksinan forthe Depart of Pl Safety, which ner ‘he UH deat dses Sts oo Wodnesey ie sil anne eBid a,“ tw eager wo lect” nao confers arth laure of 2010 men, UP Me. Mi Raph eonflmed Sted was not clined for he lcepnce tren net ‘epost bree Heald hs roe rasan Non momo were adres ‘esto, hog he dina omy ow. sre o coved sae of Sand Lat weeks Weber County an, Gerd ay, ed ante with UP saying Steed apested iin 2016 ad i Lene Enrtanent Obtain Jobe Hamat Cure cheiede Shopping Sieonbe "| sign uP what you-can become”: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55227786-78/steed-uhp-skordas-sltrib.html.esp 4/25/2013 Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive - The Salt Lake Tribune rept ventally eng hs eon for DU Rast sth st atep Towanda tom Aso Apr, Sted ha ev tw writen epmunds in ba ener, bth 2a. forewing nto ro hero Sg ale op ‘hocther ast cwag ised spe om aatpoct othe ofthe rnd ‘la she revi ad brea dt to dos hot eit Sata as ese both ongresins ir ‘Soran anil Sod ws leon rina ee ordered tee UIP fia the sn ay ve ts tater She coins on ppehok fran te tt wie appeal, ‘Stora sta sted ws os or UMP ot of nfm na wont ‘pm Heals thre wre dco about Sted eigen por wie, {he bepntent of ues, ba Sod stn sh oton wae ised lathelate "st prety oor Stoins oni of tnd," was song we had expect" penance | ee | 170 comments | Aisle oly esos UP sly png oer ‘hey cop sneer es rnionsrtn te ese dost Cy Weel rg beng sto nent Sere | Stele jb? Sc sth ae aes shelved ‘he pover that her authority gave er. seems se vent eases | ‘eranaest prety socal xox DUT aes ‘en ot ween nee gece or | ‘rangi ssmatberdkbeind the viedAnleeweatee> | Feta bedge | What tes mei ht fx Troper Sone empl roqorsclest wen it comes tothe people she had knowingly falsky hurgad and horshly ranged. Se oly els soy or eel ‘beams sho n't gating he attention the"quse” of the UH shoul be getting "am stuned they are tating her ke the wt on jt ike whe *henobilty misbehave shes ooking to be shipped of to eorner ‘ofthe kingdom i avi xe ‘She neds to goto prison, bins w+ Ropy «Stas ‘nvin vere sige? mot gp ‘Sto sa sociopath Ne remote, No eompession, ‘Abuses her that. Vilts the la Sho sem. hitp://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55227786-78/steed-uhp-skordas-sltrib.html.esp Page 2 of 4 ‘SLCDailyDeal.com SLCDAILYDEAL $15 a Ghee APRONS Findus on Facebook VIEW OEAL, he Sale ake Tibune | | 1601 aT a ab | ie Stun gt ah amon sta a Spend i, 4/25/2013 Controversial Utah trooper Lisa Steed meets.. | The Salt Lake Tribune Page 1 of 1 Controversial Utah trooper Lisa Steed meets to discuss her firing ‘Appeal Slate's Pubic Safety commissioner wil decide her fate, This is an archived article that was published on sitib.com in 2012, and information in the alice may be outdated, It ls provided only | ‘and may not bee ‘Utah Highway Patrol Cp. Lisa Steed has taken the fst step In appealing her firing and is await “Tuesday, word on her ease, her lawyer sald Stood, wit is acused of lying on the witness stand and was under suspiion by a superior of flsiying amest reports, met Nov. 5 with ‘Utah Department of Public Safety Commissioner Lance Davenport. Sted atlorney, Grex Skordas, declined to give details ofthe meeting but called "coral" ‘Sordas sald Davenport has lttude in determining what happens next, "She could be reinstated. She could be fed, and everything in between," Skordas sui ‘Skordas said Stoed "doesn't want to lose her job." Skordas declined to say whether his client would accept a cvilin post within the UP for ts parent agency. Department of Puble Safety spokesman Dwayne Baird reposted thatthe Steed situation is "an internal matter.” UUHP sont a Jetter Nov. o Steed notifying her she will be fired. Asa state employee, tee asthe nght to appeal the termination. If ‘Steed is unhappy with Davenpor’s decision, she can take her case toa state boar Sted aso has the option a ling a lawsuit over her termination. LHP has boen investigating Steed drug possession eases. April, when two state judges found she had been untruthful on the witness stand during DUL and Last month, The Salt Lake Tvibune reported on a 2010 memo in which Sted’ then-supervisor, St, Rob Nixon, referred to a pattern" of confletng information between Steed's arrest reports and laboratory results. In seven of 20 eases Nixon sad he reviewed, toxcology tests shoveed drivers arrested by Stood for DUI had only the remnants of drugs or pharmaceuticals in thei blood, not necessely the ‘legal kin, andl four other devers had no drogs in thelr systems. ‘After the dislosureof the memo, UP Maj. Mike Rapich confirmed that Steed was not disciplined forthe diserepancis between arrest reports and la results, Earlier thls month, Clifford Ray led a rotie with UHP saying Steed serestd him in 2010 and falsified a report, eventually leading to is convietion for DUI. Ray's notice isthe frst step toward a lawsuit. Ray’ attorney, Michael Studebaker, told‘The Tribune last weok he has 2a linilar eases. carlisie@sturib.com ‘Twitter: @natecartishe ‘eceprig uta me sat Lita Tibi AER Ras Te a Se Pn,raen,RtenCr Ree. 4/25/2013 Utah Highway Patrol denies first appeal for...| The Salt Lake Tribune Page 1 of 1 Oh Sal ke Crt Utah Highway Patrol denies first appeal for fired Lisa Steed Pubic sally «Lisa Stood can sil chalenge her terinaton. This is an archived article that was published on siib.com in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated, It is provided only for personal research purposes and may aot be reprinted Lisa Steed’ firs effort to appeal her firing from the Utah Highway Patrol has been denied, ber attomey suid, ‘Steed, a corporal in UHP, ean still appeal hor termination with a sate board. Ate that, she could file a laweu to get her job buck, Stwed's lawyer, Greg Skordas, confirmed the developments Wednesday intext message "We were given 20 days toile an appeal," Skordas wrote. "T have advised herto do so and she is willing to follow that advice.” ‘Steed was removed from policing duties in Api after judges in Salt Lake County and Davis counties found Steed lied on the witness stand. Then in October, The Tribune reported on a 2010 memo writen by leeds then-sergeant saying Steed was falsifying arrest reports. UHP Maj, Mike Rapih later said Steed was not disciplined for issues raised in he memo, but UHP did addeess the matter. Raich did not say how, CHP fired Steed in a Nov. eter. Asa state employee, she is entitled to appeat her termination, Her fist opportunity to do so wasa Nov. 45 meeting with Lance Davenpont, the commissioner ofthe Uiah Department of Pablie Safety, Davenport denied the appeal in a Nov. 27, letter, Skordas sid. ‘Skordas has described Steed's transgressions as minor an said she deserves to remain emplayed by the state, ‘Meanwitlle, Ogden attorney Michae! Studebaker has boen collecting clients who want to sue UHP for what they say were unlawful arrests by Steed that lend to convictions, Studebaker fled eoutt papers this week frat least four elients who want thelr onvietion for drank Aiving-elated offenses vacated. Studebaker sud Ube convictions will need to be vacated before lawsults ea be fled, neatlsle@stsb.com ‘Titer: @natecarlsle ‘capt at Sa ak nA Rae Tl Maa ay Nea ng re geen reine http://archive.sltrib.com/printfriendly .php?id=24415844&itype=storyID 4/25/2013 PrintFriendly.com: Print web pages, create PDFs Page | of 2 Utah moves to fire trooper criticized in DUI cases http://www. standard .net/stories/2012/1 1 /08/utah-moves-fre-trooper-criticized-dul-cases ‘April 25, 2013 Contributed By Contributed The Associated Press Thu, 11/08/2012 - 4:51pm SALT LAKE CITY — State officials are taking steps to fire a Utah Highway Patrol trooper who has been criticized for how she handled drunken driving cases, her attorney said Prosecutors announced this summer they wouldn’t charge Cpl. Lisa Steed, who has been under investigation since two judges found in April she had been untruthful on the witness stand during DUI and drug possession cases. However, the Utah Highway Patrol sent a letter Nov. 1 notifying Steed she will be fired, according to her attorney, Greg Skordas. Steed has requested a meeting with the commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety, he said. The patrol hasn’t replied to that request. Such meetings are the first step in an appeal process available to state employees facing termination, but it could be months before there is a resolution. "She loves her job and she would like to keep it in some fashion,” Skordas told The Salt Lake Tribune. “She’s certainly willing to be reassigned or moved to a different area.” Dwayne Baird, a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety, declined to discuss Steed. “It’s still an internal matter," Baird said, "and it would be inappropriate for us to discuss it.” http://www printfriendly.com/print?url=http%3A%2F%2F www standard.net%2Fstories%... 4/25/2013 PrintFriendly.com: Print web pages, create PDFs Page 2 of 2 Steed’s credibility in DUI cases has been questioned since a judge in the 3rd District, which includes Salt Lake City, said Steed wasn’t truthful and suppressed evidence in a case in April. That same month, a judge in the 2nd District, which includes Davis County, also said Steed suppressed evidence in a case, and the Davis County attorney has said he will not prosecute cases where Steed is a significant witness. Last month, the newspaper also reported on a 2010 memo in which Steed’s then- supervisor referred to a pattern of conflicting information between Steed’s arrest reports and laboratory results. In seven of 20 cases Nixon said he reviewed, toxicology tests showed drivers arrested by Steed for DUI had only the remnants of drugs or pharmaceuticals in their blood, not necessarily the illegal kind, and four other drivers had no drugs in their systems, according to the memo. Skordas said Steed was placed on administrative leave and ordered to leave UHP offices the same day she was served with the letter. She continues to draw a paycheck from the state while appealing. “She's pretty discouraged,” Skordas said. "This wasn’t something we had expected." More Stories from DUI http://www.printfriendly.com/print?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.standard.net%2Fstories%... 4/25/2013

You might also like