Summary - Small, Medium, and Large Corruption In Kootenai County

(a string of illegal or inappropriate actions by law enforcement)

This is just one tiny example of the lifecycle of law enforcement abuse, and it's part of the reason I decided to run for Sheriff. It's rare to catch any evidence of such wrongdoing; but you'll find sustainable evidence throughout this report. Remember that if even one of the many wrongful actions is true, it's a big deal. It should have been properly addressed. Now remember that it's all true and Imagine how many times such things go on, undocumented, and completely unchecked.

The larger problem is that the leadership was contacted, with provable circumstances to address these problems and instead of helping, they chose to help cover it all up. This assisted in allowing the assault of Alyssa Lamar to go unaddressed. Corruption is criminal and it's easy when nobody can catch you.

STALKING & PREMEDITATED HARASSMENT OF NAGEL BY OFFICER

  • Lucas Crigger becomes Rathdrum Police Officer BUT FIRST

    • Expresses​ intention to become officer AND THEN arrest Nagel

      • Multiple times

      • To multiple witnesses, including:

        • Law enforcement personnel from: KCSO, FBI, ATF

          • Names confidential

        • Carli Durick

        • Hunter Raino Jones

      • The above agencies and people came to Nagel and warned him

      • Nagel expressed concerns to County Prosecutor, Barry McHugh​

​​​

ILLEGAL TRAFFIC STOP (by Crigger)

  • Rathdrum PD, illegally patrolling outside of city limits​

    • Participation by KCSO Deputy


CHARGE BY POLICE (Vacated):

  • DUI

STATUS:

  • "VACATED" (not DROPPED; but VACATED, because police had no evidence, broke laws and policies throughout)

 

COST TO CITIZEN, REGARDLESS:

  • $1,500

  • One year suspension 

  • Having to be arrested

ILLEGAL OR WRONGFUL ACTIONS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT:

  • Illegal traffic stop by Rathdrum PD

    • Multiple policy violations during stop

    • Participation by Sheriff Deputy during process

      • Illegal refusal of KSCO to provide said report AND

      • Failure of KSCO to take lead on county traffic stop

        • Illegal arrest by wrong agency

    • Verbal fabrication of reason for traffic stop

    • Fabricated reason presented no danger to the road, was not cause for traffic stop

    • Other officer re-writes first report, falsifying information, contradicting first report

      • Illegal advisement by officer to backdate report to justify use of "fresh pursuit"
    • Verbal demonstration (recorded) of lack of knowledge of laws and policies

    • Complicity with illegal actions among leadership

  • Nurturing of culture of illegal harassment of citizens

Entire Story & Documentation Below

Preliminary Civilian Events

EVENT P-0: Lucas Crigger states intentions to harass and arrest Nagel

OFFENDING CITIZEN:

1) Lucas Criger (pre-law enforcement)

WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS ACTION?

  1. It is the beginning to harassment and stalking 

    1. This continues after Crigger becomes a police officer​

    2. There are several witnesses to his stated intentions

DESCRIPTION:

​While attending NIC, Lucas Crigger begins to share his intentions, which include becoming a police officer and then "arresting Nagel". 

  • To multiple witnesses, including:

    • Law enforcement personnel from: KCSO, FBI, ATF

      • Names will not be stated here

    • Carli Durick

    • Hunter Raino Jones

    • The above agencies and people came to Nagel and warned him

  • Nagel expressed concerns to County Prosecutor, Barry McHugh​

12.29.16

EVENT P-1: Leroy Mossbrucker confronted for verbally abusing / harassing Alyssa Lamar in public establishment

OFFENDING CITIZEN:

1) Leroy Mossbrucker

WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS ACTION?

  1. Mossbrucker later fabricates a complaint in retaliation

  2. Mossbrucker is later advised by an officer to illegally falsify information on his complaint

    1. This lead to a second police report which was fabricated​ and contradictory to the first

DESCRIPTION:

  1. Mossbrucker is verbally abusing / harassing his girlfriend's daughter (Alyssa) in a public establishment. 

  2. Nagel confronts him to stop abusive behavior (multiple witnesses)

  3. Later, embarrassed and enraged, Mossbrucker fabricates a claim that Nagel was harassing two of his daughters​

12.29.16

EVENT P-2: Mossbrucker appears to know Lucas Crigger

PERPETRATOR:

1) Leroy Mossbrucker

2) Officer Lucas Crigger

WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS ACTION?

  1. With minimal communication, Mossbrucker appears to dispatch Officer Crigger to find Nagel

    1. All vehicles are driving at the time (no conversation)​

    2. Mossbrucker points to Nagel's vehicle when passing Officer Crigger

  2. Crigger will soon conduct an illegal traffic stop against Nagle, somehow knowing about the incident above [P-1]​​

    1. No report, no call log, no​ complaint, no reason to know about [P-1]

12.29.16

EVENT P-3: Lucas Crigger fails to take complaint

OFFENDING OFFICER / EMPLOYEE:

1) Lucas Crigger, RPD

WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS ACTION?

  1. Aside from being a false claim, KCSO policy is to take a report first

    1. Send second unit if urgent pursuit is needed​

  2. Officer Crigger started his routine patrol of Kootenai County

  3. Days later, Mossbrucker goes to station to file report and is illegally instructed by officer to backdate report (bodycam proof)

DESCRIPTION:

Officer Lucas Crigger is driving on a portion of Greensferry Road that is outside of Rathdrum city limits at the time. He pulls Nagel over and when asked why Crigger pulled him over, Crigger said he was doing a "routine patrol". 

DOCUMENTATION:

  1. Media KC-1

    1. Applicable Map of Kootenai County

Primary Law Enforcement Events

12.29.16

EVENT A-1: Lucas Crigger makes illegal traffic stop

OFFENDING OFFICER / EMPLOYEE:

  1. Lucas Crigger, RPD

WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS ACTION?

  1. Officer is "on routine patrol" outside of city limits and makes traffic stop

    1. It is illegal for municipal police to do routine patrol outside of city boundaries​

    2. It is only legal to make a traffic stop outside of city limits when in "fresh pursuit" (car chase)

  2. Documentation shows:

    1. Lack of knowledge of policy and law

    2. Shows claims that are later contradicted in reports

    3. Changing reasons for traffic stop

    4. Shows second officer from county present, which is nonexistent in KCSO files

      1. No report, no video - ever

DESCRIPTION:

Officer Crigger is breaking basic department policy and state law. 

DOCUMENTATION:

  1. Media KC-1

    1. Relevant map of Kootenai County, city boundaries at the time

  2. Mediat LC-1b​

    1. Transcript of Lucas Crigger's body cam on said traffic stop​

      1. Requests second officer "non-code" w/ PF dispatch​

      2. Makes multiple claims for reasons for traffic stop

      3. Includes actual transcripts titled "Police 2" of the other officer (no report or media ever  to be found)

  3. Media KC-3 (below)

    1. Post Falls dispatch audio recording confirming request and supply of county officer to assist Crigger

    2. There will never be any records of this second officer, except this recording​​​

    3. Particularly @ 2:15 there is evidence

  4. ALSO Media KC-3 (below)​

    1. @ 2:55 Officer #2 can be heard telling dispatch to "update location to Burlington and Greensferry" which puts the stop back in Rathdrum City. This is an intentional attempt to cover up Crigger's illegal stop. ​

      1. KCSO refuses to provide the name of this officer #2, or a report from this officer #2 heard on this recording​, and even denies he was there.

Media KC-3Post Falls Dispatch
00:00 / 06:03

12.29.16

EVENT A-2: Lucas Crigger fabricates reason for the stop

OFFENDING OFFICER / EMPLOYEE:

  1. Lucas Crigger, RPD

WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS ACTION?

  1. Crigger fabricates a reason for the stop​

    1. The fabricated claim does not provide grounds for a traffic stop​

  2. The fabricated claim is not possible because it involves claiming vehicle was backing up with no lights on​

    1. Nagel challenges the officer and says that's not possible​

    2. Requests to show the officer it's not possible

      1. Officer refuses to discuss scenario and moves forward to DUI activity ​

DESCRIPTION:

The reason Crigger created was for "making a 3-point turn". Aside from this action not happening, if it had happened, it would not have been a "danger to the road" and therefore not cause for a stop. More importantly, when a vehicle is in reverse, the reverse lights are on. Also, when a vehicle has automatic lights, drive cannot operate vechicle without lights. The officer is lying. 

DOCUMENTATION:

  1. Mediat LC-1b​

    1. Transcript of Lucas Crigger's body cam on said traffic stop​

12.29.16

EVENT A-3: Lucas Crigger demonstrates lack of knowledge of jurisdiction

OFFENDING OFFICER / EMPLOYEE:

  1. Lucas Crigger, RPD

WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS ACTION?

  1. Idaho State Law & KCSO policy dictates that a county officer would have to take over outside of city limits

  2. Crigger actions imply that he is not aware of this

DESCRIPTION:

Crigger proceeds alone, after acknowledging (on dispatch recording) that there is a county officer on the way. He also requests that the county officer comes "non-code" or no lights. When an officer's lights are on, their dash-cam automatically records. This way there will be no dash-cam footage.

DOCUMENTATION:

  1. Mediat LC-1b​

    1. Transcript of Lucas Crigger's body cam on said traffic stop​

12.29.16

EVENT A-4: Lucas Crigger changing stories

OFFENDING OFFICER / EMPLOYEE:

  1. Lucas Crigger, RPD

WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS ACTION?

  1. Begins to discuss alleged harassment claim, irrelevant to claimed reason for the stop​​

    1. Had no official complaint from which to pursue anyone​

    2. Begs the question: How did he know about Mossbrucker's claim without an actual transaction?

DESCRIPTION:

  • Crigger states that he's just doing routine patrol; but appears to have another agenda... has no official or report or directives for that agenda. Asks about Mossbrucker's claim. The fact that he could know about Mossbrucker's claim without having transacted with him begs the question "how could he know any details at all?"

DOCUMENTATION:

  1. Mediat LC-1b​

    1. Transcript of Lucas Crigger's body cam on said traffic stop​

  2. Media JN-4​

    1. Letter from RPD stating there is no complaint from Mossbrucker​

12.29.16

EVENT A-5: KC Sheriff Deputy arrives, does not lead, Police deny 2nd officer was there

OFFENDING OFFICER / EMPLOYEE:

  1. Lucas Crigger, RPD

  2. KC Deputy

  3. Rathdrum Police Department

  4. Kootenai County Sheriff's Office

WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS ACTION?

  1. Recording proves there was a Deputy integrated at the stop.

    1. KCSO has to this day refused to provide the name of this deputy

    2. KCSO has refused to acknowledge that this deputy was present

    3. KSCO has refused multiple attempts to provide public information from this officer's report, or his dashcam or bodycam footage​.

      1. Requests were ignored before, during and after the court case.​

DESCRIPTION:

Deputy arrives and begins discovery and transaction. It is recorded on Crigger's bodycam (transcript provided below). This deputy has never been acknowledged or integrated into any of the processes or reports to date. The KCSO has refused to help. 

DOCUMENTATION:

  1. Media JN-1

    1. ​​Information request denied for report this transaction​ (public information - still denied)

      1. ​"Record not known to exist"​

        1. No records from county officer​

        2. Was supposed to lead

  2. Media JN-2​

    1. Second information request denied for this transaction (public information - still denied)​

      1. "Record not known to exist"​

        1. No records from county officer​

        2. Was supposed to lead

  3. Media JN-5

    1. Rathdrum PD issuing denial of knowledge or records of county officer assisting Crigger​​​​

  4. Media KC-3 (below)

    1. Post Falls dispatch audio recording confirming request and supply of county officer to assist Crigger

    2. There will never be any records of this second officer, except this recording​​​

    3. Particularly @ 2:15 there is evidence

Media KC-3Post Falls Dispatch
00:00 / 06:03

12.29.16

EVENT A-7: Wrong officer (Lucas Crigger) continues to lead transaction

OFFENDING OFFICER / EMPLOYEE:

  1. Lucas Crigger, RPD

  2. KC Deputy

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS ACTION?

  1. Officer Crigger is not allowed to conduct this transaction since it's in county [Idaho Law Chapter 62-2337]

  2. KC Deputy inappropriately allows breaking this law and KCSO policy failure

    1. This enables Crigger to continue to make mistakes​

DESCRIPTION:

The deputy was sent because Crigger is not allowed to conduct this transaction and needs a county officer to do it for him. After Deputy arrives, both officers disregard Idaho State Law [ Chapter 67-2337 ] and allow Crigger to lead. 

DOCUMENTATION:

  1. Media LC-1b​

    1. Transcript of Lucas Crigger's body cam on said traffic stop​

  2. Idaho State Law

    1. Link to the actual law which was violated​

  3. Media KC-12​

    1. Sheriff Wolfinger and Undersheriff Dan Mattos to sign Memorandum allowing municipal police to work in county territory​

      1. Stating among other things:​

        1. "​​After review of the proposed M.O.U. and review by legal counsel, I will not be signing the document. I believe that this document, as written, gives unfettered authority to the Coeur d'Alene Police Department to work anywhere outside of the City of Coeur d'Alene without corresponding accountability to those citizens who live outside of the City of Coeur d'Alene. I do not believe that the citizens of Idaho, nor more specifically of Kootenai County are willing to allow such authority without the corresponding accountability."

12.29.16

EVENT A-8: Inappropriate attempt by Lucas Crigger at field sobriety test (civil rights violation)

OFFENDING OFFICER / EMPLOYEE:

  1. Lucas Crigger, RPD

  2. KC Deputy

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS ACTION?

  1. All actions lead by wrong officer (Crigger) are done under the authority of the Sheriff's Deputy

    1. Crigger ​continues to lead and decides to require a field sobriety test with no probable cause for the stop

      1. Nagel refuses on 2 grounds:​

        1. No probable cause​ for stop

        2. Leading officer is out of jurisdiction

      2. Crigger threatens to arrest Nagel for "Obstruction"​

      3. Nagel educates officer that it's an illegal traffic stop, also not "obstruction" to point out officer's mistakes (and lies)

    2. KC Deputy decides citizen Nagel is not allowed to "discuss" or "contest" anything, and that the police are always right

DESCRIPTION:

It's ​up to the lead officer to take responsibility for this event. Not only was the wrong officer allowed to lead, he made many mistakes. Then upon being educated by citizen Nagel, the Deputy decided to shut down the conversation and allow an arrest.

DOCUMENTATION:

  1. Mediat LC-1b​

    1. Transcript of Lucas Crigger's body cam on said traffic stop​

12.29.16

EVENT A-9: Illegal arrest by Lucas Crigger

OFFENDING OFFICER / EMPLOYEE:

  1. Lucas Crigger, RPD

  2. KC Deputy

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS ACTION?

  1. Policy and law is broken (and allowed by Deputy) when Crigger makes arrest

  2. The arrest itself is inappropriate, as there was no probable cause to explore and force DUI criteria

  3. Arrest is made for "Suspicion of DUI" (later testifies arrest was for refusal to take FST)

    1. Zero tests​

    2. Zero breathalizer

    3. Zero blood tests

    4. Zero field sobriety tests

    5. Zero probable cause

    6. Required bail

    7. Processed for DUI

DESCRIPTION:

There is no reason to explore DUI or force testing if there is no probable cause. Since the "reason" Crigger stopped citizen Nagel was not related to any moving violations or any indication of drunk driving (in fact as stated at first he had no reason at all), then this should not have been allowed to happen. It's abuse of power by a young, empowered cop with an overinflated ego. Worse, the actual Sheriff Deputy in charge allowed it all to happen. 

DOCUMENTATION:

12.31.16

EVENT A-10: Officers Crigger, Marshall & KCSO falsify docs [Felony] and conflicting with each other and actual fact

OFFENDING OFFICER / EMPLOYEE:

  1. Lucas Crigger, RPD

  2. Officer G. Marshall, RPD

  3. KCSO

WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS ACTION?

  1. The inaccurate reporting helps cover up illegal traffic stop and errors

  2. Crigger report says conducting "routine patrol"​

  3. Crigger report shows wrong location

  4. KSCO dispatch log shows different wrong location

  5. Crigger "involvements" will be contradicted in court

  6. Officer Marshall revises Crigger's report and includes false data and no statement of any complaint or interaction with Leroy Mossbrucker

DESCRIPTION:

Crigger makes report which is contradicted by himself in court and in the second report to come. Officer Marshall allows false information to be entered and fabricates in his own re-writing of involvements page (against Idaho Code 18-3201) - a felony 

DOCUMENTATION:

  1. Media JN-2

    1. Official public record of Crigger's report​

  2. Media JN-3​​

    1. "Involvements" listed by Crigger, which change in a later report​​​

  3. Media KC-7​

    1. KCSO provides dispatch log with location conflicting with Crigger (show's inside Rathdrum city limits)

  4. Media KC-1

    1. Relevant map of Kootenai County, city boundaries at the time

    2. Shows the conflicting places / claims for location of stop

1.4.17

EVENT A-11: Case inappropriately referred to and prosecuted by Joel Ryan

OFFENDING OFFICER / EMPLOYEE:

  1. Rathdrum Police Department

  2. Lucas Crigger

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS ACTION?

  1. The case had no prosecutable elements and was "falsely prosecuted"

  2. This case was not DROPPED; but actually VACATED by the Prosecutor because it was un-prosecutable  

    1. This traffic stop was illegal, so it would never be prosecuted

    2. There was no probable cause to arrest for suspicion of DUI, so it would never be prosecuted

    3. This was a waste of tax payer money from the beginning

DESCRIPTION:

It is the duty of the County Prosecutor to review a report before allowing prosecution. This case had no grounds for prosecution.

Date: Not Entered

EVENT A-12: Officer Marshall commits FELONIES falsifying data on report

OFFENDING OFFICER / EMPLOYEE:

  1. Officer G. Marshall, RPD

  2. Lucas Crigger

WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS EVENT?

  1. This is COVER UP behavior (corruption)

    1. Officer commits felony by allowing back dating (false witness)

      1. ​Officer is heard on his own bodycam allowing inaccurate data to be applied

    2. Officer commits felony by entering false information on 2nd "involvements" page

    3. Mossbrucker entering false information

  2. Due to the circumstances documented here, it is proven that there was never an actual legal complaint

    1. Therefore without a complaint, this was wrongfully referred to Prosecution

      1. Prosecutor, JOEL RYAN, eventually maliciously prosecutes without a complaint (illegally)  

        1. DUI charge VACATED

    2. During hearing Lucas Crigger testified under oath that he had a "complaint"​​

DESCRIPTION:

Proven in the documentation, officer G. Marshall commits 2 felonies by violating Idaho State Law 18-3201. 

OFFICER STEALING, MUTILATING OR FALSIFYING PUBLIC RECORDS. Any public officer, law enforcement officer, or subordinate thereof, who wilfully destroys, alters, falsifies or commits the theft of the whole or any part of any police report or any record kept as part of the official governmental records of the state or any county or municipality in the state, shall be guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than fourteen (14) years.

 

The officers involved in the illegal traffic stop, the Rathdrum Police Department, and the Kootenai County Sheriff's Office are all vulnerable to being somehow exposed from all the many mistakes during this process, so they begin to do what they do: COVER UP for each other. 

Mossbrucker comes in days later to provide the documents officers need; but they were too late. So Mossbrucker and Officer Marshall backdate the documents

Then they revised the police report on the arrest, showing different involvements than before. The illegal work they did was used to forward to prosecution. 

AND THIS... is covering up. THIS is corruption.  

ALL CHARGES WERE VACATED. 

DOCUMENTATION:

  1. Media JN-6

    1. Official Police report​ [excerpts w markings]

      1. See illustrations in document​

  2. Media GM-1​​ (excerpt video below) 

    1. Officer G. Marshall body cam​

        1. Allows Mossbrucker to backdate report​

RPD Officer allows backdating of statement
FB LOGO 2.png
P.O. Box 182
Rathdrum, ID 83858
208-818-0871
info@nagelforsheriff.com
Paid for by Justin Nagel for Sheriff, Justin Nagel, treasurer.
©2020 All Rights Reserved