YOUR SUPPORT HELPS
|
|
YOUR SUPPORT HELPS
|
December 25 , 2013
Internal Affairs investigation requested of Polk County Investigator Michael Norland
by Timothy Charles Holmseth
Timothy Charles Holmseth In Re: Request for Investigation / Sgt. Michael Norland December 25, 2013 Barb Erdman Sheriff Erdman, Please accept this as my request for an investigation of Sgt. Investigator Michael Norland. Moreover – please investigate the illegal search and subsequent destruction of my hard-drive. The filing of this Internal Affairs complaint is necessary in the investigative protocol of the Peace Officers Standard and Training. The federal aspect of this matter will be taken up with the FBI. Respectfully, Attached: Internal Affairs Complaint / Synopsis * * * * * MISCONDUCT I. INTRODUCTION SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF HARD DRIVE On December 14, 2012 the East Grand Forks Police Department (EGFPD) seized a hard-drive from Timothy Holmseth. The EGFPD initially seized the hard-drive because officers believed they were going to find something very significant on it. The EGFPD embellished the Affidavit for a Search Warrant of Holmseth’s home-office with the appearance the operation was a function of the Pine-to-Prairie Drug Task Force and Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. The hard-drive was searched not long after it was seized. The police did not find anything illegal. Moreover – they did not find what they believed they were going to find. On January 4, 2013 East Grand Forks City Attorney Ronald Galstad told Honorable Tamara Yon in open court that the ‘Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’ would not conduct a forensic search on Holmseth’s hard-drive without another warrant. He told Judge Yon that he planned to request the search warrant in the future. The STATE OF MINNESOTA already knew as of January 4, 2013 there was nothing illegal on the hard-drive. NO CHAIN OF EVIDENCE Records from the actual seizure of the hard-drive show it was in the possession of the EGFPD on December 14, 2013. According to Katrina Genereux, records clerk, Polk County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) there were no other records outside of a report filed by Sgt. Investigator Michael Norland that would denote a chain of evidence. READ SHERIFF'S REPORT FILED BY SGT. NORLAND EGF Police Chief Michael Hedlund stated in a letter to Holmseth on December 6, 2013 that no ‘Chain of Evidence’ forms were filled out by the EGFPD or the PCSO. There is no documentation, in any form or fashion, which logs the intake of this evidence into the official possession of the PCSO. Because there is no chain of evidence documentation from either the Sheriff’s Office or Police Department there is a complete void in the timeline between December 14, 2012 and March 29, 2013 when Sgt. Investigator Michael Norland, PCSO, makes his very first entry regarding the case. II. MISCONDUCT OF SGT. INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL NORLAND RETROACTIVE ENTRIES AND CONVENIENT DATES On March 29, 2013 Sgt. Michael Norland, investigator, Polk County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) reports he received a call from Lt. Detective Rodney Hajicek at the EGFPD. He reports the call was regarding a hard-drive and cell phones that (he states in his report) were dropped of on December 15, 2012 by Officer Aeisso Schrage of the Pine to Prairie Task Force. In his entry on March 29, 2013, Norland does not attest to actually seeing or physically observing the hard-drive on December 15, 2012. He does not state that he witnessed the hard-drive in the possession of the Sheriff’s Office. Rather, he simply states that Lt. Hajicek telephoned him and they talked about the hard-drive. He is merely reporting what Hajicek told him. Norland completed no Chain of Evidence form. Yet, he inserts the date of December 15, 2012 into a report. The reality is the hard-drive could have been virtually anywhere. The reference to December 15, 2013 by Norland is a red herring. Norland’s mention of ‘December 15, 2012’ is a calculated act of deception. It is a parlor trick by Norland. He purposely attempted to obfuscate facts by introducing the date December 15, 2013 into the record. Nowhere else in any of the records produced by law enforcement regarding the physical location of this hard-drive is the date December 15, 2013 ever recorded. Norland is improperly attempting to cover for the EGFPD by creating a ‘perceived’ location of the hard-drive. Holmseth contacted the EGFPD and made requests for records. He was told by Chief Hedlund he had been given all records regarding the matter. Holmseth was not given any report authored by Hajicek that recorded a call from Hajicek to Norland on March 29, 2013. This act of fabricating and retroactively entering a date to account for the whereabouts of the hard-drive is evidence the report may have been re-written at a much later date to cover for problems created by the chain of evidence records requests made by Holmseth. ILLEGAL SEARCH On April 27, 2013 Norland makes an entry to his report, wherein he acknowledges physically possessing the hard-drive on April 3, 2013. Norland makes this retroactive entry three and a half weeks after the fact. Norland’s retroactive entry is evidence he did not originally plan to record any of this activity. The forensic search that Norland is being asked to perform is, in sum and substance, the forensic search referred to by Attorney Galstad on January 4, 2013 when Galstad told Judge Yon the BCA would not perform the search without another warrant. This search was illegal. There is no warrant for this search. Galstad and the EGFPD knew this search was illegal. On April 27, 2013 Norland recorded his search of the hard-drive. He stated the following: “The hard drive that was given to me to look at was a Western Digital 500 GB hard drive with the S/N: WCAS87169279. On 04/03/2013 at approx. 0850 hrs. I hook up the above hard drive to a write blocker that was hooked up to my forensic computer through a USB cord. I looked through the computer and did not find anything that would show illegal activity on the computer. I then shut the computer off and unhooked the hard drive.” At no time does Norland mention having a search warrant. He does not state under what authority he is operating. This forensic search performed by Norland on April 3, 2013 was likely generated by the call he received from Lt. Hajicek on March 29, 2013. It appears Hajicek telephoned Norland about a (Holmseth’s) hard-drive that he needed forensically searched. This may have been the first time Norland ever had any involvement with the hard-drive or the investigation. It is very possible the hard-drive was in the possession of the EGFPD when Hajicek telephoned Norland. It is possible Norland was asked to do the illegal search because the BCA would never participate in such a thing. Ironically – (despite law enforcement’s use of BCA evidence labels) the BCA ultimately disavowed any involvement with this case whatsoever. There is no indication Galstad ever sought the warrant he mentioned to Judge Yon. Because neither Norland nor the EGFPD recorded the delivery of the hard-drive to the Sheriff’s Office in a Chain of Evidence form, the April 3, 2013 search of the hard-drive by Norland is the first actual eye-witness account to the whereabouts of the hard-drive since it was seized on December 14, 2012. Norland states in his report: “I later return the hard drive and cell phones to Officer Schrage. I was later asked to image the drive. I again received the hard-drive on 04/22/2013. I was in the process of imaging another hard drive and did not get a chance to image the hard drive. On 04/26/2013 I was again contacted by Officer Schrage that there was court order for all property to be returned to the suspect in their case. The hard drive was returned to Officer Schrage.” When Norland reports his activities of physically handling and transferring possession of the hard-drive following his search of it on April 3, 2013, he does not use a time and date. Instead, he uses the vague conceptual word “later”. He uses the word “later” twice. When Norland reports his activities of physically handling and transferring possession of the hard-drive, he does not consistently name the person with whom he is communicating and cooperating with regarding the hard-drive. On one occasion he says, “I again received the hard-drive on 04/22/2013”. The statement does not name the person that gave it to him. It does not state where he was at. Hypothetically – he could have been in the home of Rod Hajicek or Aeisso Schrage. This seasoned investigator for the Sheriff’s Office is not using a Chain of Evidence form on a project that (allegedly) involves the (federally funded) Pine-to-Prairie Task Force and BCA. Rather, to record the transference of evidence to another, un-identified person, he haphazardly switches around; sometimes using the date; sometimes using the word “later”. III. CONCLUSION Sgt. Norland did not intend to record his search of the hard-drive. He did not fill out a Chain of Custody form and neither did the EGFPD. The search was conducted with Write Check, which is a program that leaves no trace of the activity. This was originally planned to be a ‘secret’ search. It makes complete sense that Norland and the EGFPD did not generate Chain of Evidence documentation for this activity because it was completely illegal. Norland likely became befuddled and nervous after his forensic search did not uncover something the EGFPD had assured him they were going to find. Not only had he not found any sign of illegal activity, but he was subsequently asked to make a copy of the hard-drive – a very suspicious request indeed that indicated even more criminal behavior was planned. It is possible Norland became disillusioned with the illegal activity and decided to record the search in a report. It is also possible the report made public by the Sheriff’s Office is not the original report and was re-written in effort to streamline with the EGFPD. It is also possible the report was literally created for the first time on some date following Holmseth’s request for Chain of Evidence records on November 20, 2013. The hard-drive was returned to Holmseth per court order on April 26, 2013. Norland’s retroactive accounting of his activities was authored on April 27, 2013. On May 2, 2013 the report is approved by his supervisor James Tadman. It is possible James Tadman is also guilty of Misconduct. The hard-drive was returned inoperable and wires had been pulled out inside the computer tower.
|