If you enforce the law, are you above the law?

What happens when law enforcement officers behave as if they're above the law? At the Iredell County Sheriff's Office, the answer to that question apparently depends on who you are.

Take the employment of Tommy Adams for example.

Redmond violated his own policies when he hired Adams, a private citizen, in the early 2000s. Applicants considered for employment at the sheriff's office, among other requirements, must “be of good moral character” and “have not committed or been convicted of a crime or crimes as specified in 12 NCAC 10B.0204 & .0307 (felony, certain misdemeanors),” according to http://www.co.iredell.nc.us/departments/sheriff/employment.asp.

At the time Redmond hired him, Adams' former employer – a major retail store in Winston Salem – had charged him with felony embezzlement. Adams pleaded the charge down to a misdemeanor, which remained on his record when Redmond hired him to work at the Iredell County Sheriff's Office.

Adams worked as an unsworn employee at the sheriff's office before enrolling in Basic Law Enforcement Training (BLET) in or around 2004. Iredell County paid Adams' tuition and fees, according to the county's finance department, even while many rookies have paid their own way through BLET, taking classes while working at the sheriff's office at opposite times of the day.

But Adams' luck didn't end there. Redmond violated his hiring policies – again – when he promoted Adams to detective sergeant straight out of basic training.

Detective-applicants at the sheriff's office should have a minimum of “3 to 5 years of experience in law enforcement; or any equivalent combination of training and experience,” states a recent job posting at http://www.co.iredell.nc.us/departments/sheriff/employment.asp. While Adams had worked at the sheriff's office for a while before enrolling in BLET, he had never been a sworn law-enforcement officer.

Such a promotion – fresh out of rookie school with no prior training as a sworn officer – is virtually unheard of in the law-enforcement community, according to several North Carolina police chiefs and one sheriff-hopeful that responded to recent Report questions.

“It is highly unlikely that someone would go straight in to investigations right out of BLET,” said Wilkesboro Police Chief Robert Bowlin. “They may possess the education at that point, however, they would not possess the 'street smarts' knowledge or just basic law enforcement skills to be effective as a criminal investigator.”

The Raleigh Police Department requires an applicant for detective to have four years of law-enforcement experience with two years of continuous experience at the Raleigh PD. Applicants for sergeant must have six years of law-enforcement experience and two years of continuous service at the department.

Beaufort Police Chief Steve Lewis, as many chiefs contacted by the Report, said one exception may exist to the general rule: “Sometimes there are officers that have years of law-enforcement experience, leave the profession for various reasons, and then return having to pass through BLET again.”

However, Lewis said, he “definitely” would not promote “a rookie without any experience.”

Perhaps experience would have kept Adams from making the mistake he made in or around 2005.

Adams, accompanied by then-Det. Sgt. Ron “Duck” Wyatt, arrested a convicted felon who was living in a dwelling with firearms, which is a felony in North Carolina. Adams collected two guns, cases and ammunition from the felon's residence and signed an evidence sheet indicating he had submitted all of it to the sheriff's office evidence room.

Approximately one year later – after the defendant in the case had pleaded guilty to the charges against him – it was discovered that the guns were not in the evidence room, after all.

Upon learning that the guns were missing, or had never been turned in, two of Redmond's top cops, Capt. Jimmy Craven and Capt. Darren Campbell, questioned Adams, who initially denied any knowledge of the handguns' whereabouts. Adams later said that he and Wyatt were planning to keep the firearms, but, responding to questions, Wyatt told Craven and Campbell that besides being there when the guns were seized, he knew nothing about the firearms' whereabouts. With Adams' acknowledgment that he was in possession of one firearm, Campbell escorted Adams to his residence, where Adams retrieved the gun and turned it over to Campbell.

Adams was told that Wyatt's house had been searched for the second firearm and that Wyatt did not have the gun. Only after that did Adams retrieve the second firearm from his personal vehicle. He turned it over to Campbell.

In an August 2008 Statesville Record & Landmark article about the strength and security of Iredell County's police evidence rooms, Redmond referenced the years-old incident. Though he never mentioned Adams' name, the newspaper quoted Redmond as saying that “a deputy … didn't follow the right procedures in submitting those weapons to the evidence room.”

In a clear attempt to make light of the situation, Redmond said in the article that “the weapons were not evidence in any case.”

That's simply not true. The guns were, in fact, evidence in a criminal case. While the defendant had already pleaded guilty in the case, his firearms should have been handled in accordance with a Superior Court judge's ruling; in this particular case, a judge had ordered the guns destroyed. Adams and/or the sheriff's office could have submitted a request through the district attorney for the guns to be turned over to the sheriff's office for use or training purposes. But they didn't. The guns, therefore, were to remain as evidence until destroyed or a Superior Court judge changed his or her disposition to allow for other actions to be taken.

Redmond said the deputy “got in trouble” for his actions. Sheriff's office personnel dispute that. They say Adams wasn't punished at all for converting evidence to personal use.

Regardless of whether or not he was punished, the fact that the sheriff's office employs him to this very day indicates that he did not receive the punishment that he apparently would have at many other law-enforcement agencies in North Carolina.

“I would fire that officer fast, quick and in a hurry,” said Monroe Police Chief Debra Duncan, responding to Report questions asking how chiefs and sheriffs would respond if an officer, with no extenuating circumstances and no permission from a supervisor, converted evidence – guns, drugs or money – to personal use.

Said Statesville Police Chief Tom Anderson: “I would hope this would not happen at any agency, but I assure you that if this were to happen at my agency, swift and proper action would follow.”

“This is public trust 101,” Anderson said. “I would initiate an internal investigation immediately. I would review the general information with the District Attorney and initiate a separate investigation due to what would look to be a felony larceny and possible obstruction of justice."

Apparently following a tip, the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) became involved quite some time after the incident occurred. At some point during its "investigation," Adams' criminal record was expunged, permanently removing the misdemeanor charge that had been on it.

Steve Wilson was the SBI agent in charge of the case. His investigation included interviews with several people, at least one of whom has said that the intent of the investigation was to clear Adams and the sheriff's office by finding no criminal misconduct in the handling of the evidence.

Wyatt, who has since retired from the sheriff's office, initially declined to comment on the matter. But when asked if he retired because of the Adams incident and the resulting SBI investigation, Wyatt laughed and said no.

He confirmed speaking to Wilson on several occasions as part of the investigation, and “I asked if I was being interviewed as a suspect or a witness," Wyatt said. At that time, Wilson said he was not sure if there was a criminal investigation and he simply needed clarification on a few matters, Wyatt added.

Wyatt was asked if he outranked, supervised, trained and/or assigned cases to Adams or if he signed off on Adams' work. Wyatt said he did not.

Wilson took notes during the interview and told Wyatt that he would prepare a written statement from the notes for Wyatt to sign, but Wyatt said he never received that statement from Wilson.

Wyatt said he did, however, meet with Wilson and another agent in the summer of 2009. At that time, they again discussed the Adams case but also Wyatt's participation in golf tournaments to raise money for the re-election bid of Redmond for Sheriff. When asked if that investigation was linked to former sheriff candidate Mark Nicholson's recent reference to an SBI investigation of Redmond and his top cops for using county equipment on county time to campaign for Redmond in 2006, Wyatt declined to comment, citing his need to speak with his attorney before responding to additional questions.

"I'm concerned about my family's welfare," he said, referring further Report questions to the SBI. "If the SBI was doing an investigation they should be able to answer your questions."

An e-mail to Attorney General Roy Cooper went unanswered.

Both Redmond and Campbell also declined to answer Report questions. The sheriff responded through Campbell, citing personnel and saying: “Our attempt to craft an answer to each question presents practical and legal difficulties for us.”

However, they issued this statement: “The Iredell County Sheriff's Office and SBI conducted a proper and thorough review of this matter. Sheriff Redmond is satisfied that North Carolina law has been followed in all respects, and professional law enforcement standards and practices continue to be applied and enforced for the benefit of Iredell County citizens.”

When asked if the “proper and thorough review” had been completed, and if the state had cleared Adams of any wrongdoing, Campbell did not respond. He also didn't respond when asked why the sheriff wouldn't answer the questions if he was “satisfied” with the results of the “proper and thorough review.”

The downside to digital conversion

The Report is excited to announce we'll be contributing a commentary to the Mooresville Weekly every other Friday, beginning today. Below is today's article. Have your own opinion regarding Mooresville's laptop program? Share it here or at http://mooresvilleweekly.com/opinion/2010/10/305/

Mooresville Graded School District students are participating in a science experiment of sorts. But in this experiment, they are the mice.

Students in grades 4 to 12 are toting school-issued laptop computers between home and school. The district is on the leading edge of the conversion from textbooks to laptops and is a model for other districts across the country considering the digital change.

But the school district is learning as it goes, cutting its digital teeth on the backs of its students. And that has proven to be both good and bad. Were administrators truly prepared for the underbelly of this digital conversion? Are they capable of controlling it? Are they even acknowledging it?

Unfortunately, a 2-hour meeting this week with district Superintendent Mark Edwards and Chief Technology Officer Scott Smith, while informational, did little to ease my biggest concerns.

The computers certainly open countless windows of opportunity for students. Just recently, Edwards said, a group of students were able to monitor live seismic activity from their laptops, while another group studying the state of Illinois was able to “Skype” (video-call through a computer) a classroom of students in Illinois.

Skyping, Edwards said, is much more interesting than reading a textbook.

But so is playing Solitaire.

Some students say playing games on the laptop is a common pastime in classrooms. Edwards, however, said his teachers would take personal offense to that suggestion. “They would say ‘that reflects poorly on my teaching, and it’s not true,’” he said.

Administrators and teachers apparently tell students not to play games in class. But if they don’t want them tempted in such a way, why include games on the machines in the first place? Why do the laptops have search engines with associated chat rooms and e-mail programs? If the laptops are used strictly for educational purposes, why aren’t they stripped of all the bells and whistles?

Though the district subscribes to “Nettrekker,” an educational search engine, it has not disabled other search engines that have associated e-mail and chat-room programs. Why? Because “there’s a lot of good stuff out there that Nettrekker does not find,” Smith said.

Edwards said the district pays a subscription fee for a service that blocks student access to inappropriate websites. The district can add its own blocks and override the service’s blocks. “It’s not perfect, but it catches almost everything,” Smith said.

“By default,” added Edwards, the filters will block chat rooms but not e-mail programs. The district, he said, “does not endorse ‘outside’ e-mail use by students.”

He admitted that “no filter is perfect, and students find ways around (it).” Indeed, students have learned to access sites like Facebook and YouTube, even though filters supposedly block those sites.

“Parents are the best filter,” Edwards said. But many of the issues are happening in the classroom where parents can’t serve as filters. In fact, Apple Remote Desktop, which allows administrators and technology personnel to remotely peek at students’ computer screens while they’re in the school network, “does not work in student homes or other public locations,” Edwards said, so the district can’t determine if policies are being broken once the laptops leave the school network.

At school, students are punished via in-school suspension or out-of-school suspension for “misuse of school technology,” which Edwards said includes bullying, viewing inappropriate content and even adding stickers to the laptops. According to data provided by the school district this week, 44 Mooresville Middle students received in-school suspension and two received out-of-school suspension last year for misuse of school technology.

While Edwards and Smith said after-school detention is used only for “excessive tardy offenses,” middle-school students were, in fact, placed in after-school detention last school year for misuse of school technology. The district said this week it would compile that information, but it has not yet released it.

As of Oct. 15, five middle-school students have been sent to in-school suspension for the 2010-11 school year for misuse of school technology. In the same time at the high school, six students have received in-school suspension and two have received out-of-school suspension.

Last school year at the high school, 45 students received in-school suspension and 10 received out-of-school suspension for misuse of school technology.

Edwards said the “information about our filter and its limitations is shared with every parent during the parent training when students first received their laptops.” But parents were also told at Mooresville Intermediate School in August 2008 that students would not be able to access chat rooms or instant messaging on the MacBooks, and the school district, at that time, would not allow student-to-student e-mailing.

In regard to giving students more freedom with their laptops, Edwards said the district is simply trying to create conditions where students make the right choices. “I truly believe the vast majority of our students are responsible with [the laptops],” Edwards said. “They do what they’re supposed to do. They’re conscientious about it and follow the rules.”

While we all wish that were true, it smacks of denial, especially when the chief technology officer acknowledged that monitoring students’ Internet usage “is a constant job, and we’re trying all the time to catch the holes.

“But the kids are smart.”

A Mooresville High School senior who plans to attend a four-year college said she believes the laptops are good for research. However, she said, they’re primarily good for games – and cheating.

Some students say they cheat on homework by downloading it onto USB flash drives and sharing it with others. A 2009 Mooresville High School graduate, now in college, said laptops make cheating on tests easy, too. She and her classmates would e-mail or chat with friends – some who had taken the test earlier in the day – to ask for answers to certain questions.

Students also used search engines to find answers to questions during tests, she said. In a matter of seconds, a simple Google search yields answers to countless questions. An inquiry about the largest desert on earth produced, in less than a second, the answer to that question and the names of the hottest and driest places on earth. How many calories are in a Big Mac? More than 500. What’s 23.62 percent of 4,615.23? 1,090.11733.

Students have also learned to selectively delete certain visited websites from their browsing history so teachers won’t be as suspicious as they would be if an entire browsing history was deleted.

It’s also easier to cheat off a neighbor’s computer screen than a piece of paper on a desk, students say, especially when a teacher is on her laptop or otherwise occupied in class.

Edwards said state tests prohibit the use of any outside aides other than a calculator on certain math assessments, and SATs are conducted outside the school district. He said the numbers speak for themselves: Without the use of laptops, Mooresville’s average SAT score increased by 10 points in 2010 even with an increase in students taking the test.

But some local tests allow use of the laptops. Edwards said the district is testing software that “locks down” the laptops during an online assessment.

“Preliminary testing has been good,” he said. “If this software continues to be successful, it will be deployed to all machines.”

Smith, the technology officer said teachers can digitally arrange questions on the same test, so question 5 on one student’s test may be question 20 on another’s. Edwards added, the district encourages alternate layouts of classrooms so teachers can keep a better eye on laptop screens, but that’s been difficult in some of the smaller high-school classrooms. Administrators are also stressing to teachers the importance of walking around instead of teaching in one place, Edwards said.

The laptops offer a wide new world to students – one that could certainly prove beneficial to them in the long run. But in all the hoopla of the digital conversion, it seems students are becoming secondary to technology. To suggest parents are the best filter to the risks, when the issues are happening in the classroom, is dismissive and unfair.

When teachers are stretched too thin – especially with the added burden of “constantly” staying on top of kids’ computer use – and when administrators live in a rose-colored world where 1,500 hormonal high-schoolers “do the right thing,” it makes it natural for parents to speculate if the adults responsible for our children Monday through Friday are actually able to protect our kids while they’re being educated by Mr. World Wide Web.

Sheriff's office 'immoral, unethical, corrupt,' says former detective/sheriff candidate

Mark Nicholson, the former Republican candidate for Iredell County sheriff, is speaking out, calling the sheriff's office, under Phil Redmond's leadership, "immoral, unethical and corrupt."

A 19-year veteran of the sheriff's office, Nicholson ran against Redmond, his boss, for sheriff but fell short in the primary five months ago. That same week, Nicholson turned in his two-week notice to the sheriff's office. Working at another law-enforcement agency – which hired him almost immediately upon his resignation from the ICSO – Nicholson recently sat down with the Report to tell all.

Why did he feel compelled to run for sheriff against his boss? Why take such a risk? Why, after losing the primary, did he resign from the sheriff's office? Where is he now, and what are his future plans?

“I observed and worked with the current sheriff, Phil Redmond, for almost 16 years,” said Nicholson. “He is not the type of person who should be running the most important law-enforcement agency in the county.”

Citing inappropriate and criminal behavior – including private use of county time and equipment – and “bullying tactics” employed by the sheriff and his top brass toward those who question or don't follow the status quo, Nicholson said he resigned from the sheriff's office because he could no longer tolerate the “unethical, immoral and illegal behavior [he] observed there.”

Criminal use of public time, equipment

Nicholson said Redmond has acted illegally in his use of county-jail inmates for personal jobs and favors. In one instance, said Nicholson, a passerby observed inmates building a fence at the sheriff's house. Nicholson said the inmates have also been used to wash the vehicle of the sheriff's wife.

On another occasion, said Nicholson, “The sheriff sent [then-jailer, now-sergeant] Joel Hepler and jail inmates in a county vehicle, on county time, using county money, to spread gravel on Phil Redmond's home lawn.”

“Joel Hepler told me that out of his own mouth,” said Nicholson, adding that he remembers exactly where he was – “a KFC, eating an all-you-can-eat-buffet with another sheriff's detective” – when Hepler told both men about the incident.

Nicholson said a sheriff using jail inmates for personal use is not only against the sheriff's office “standard operational policies,” it is also against state law, classifying as “misapplying and wrongfully converting to his or her own use other property that's held in trust by the public.” And that, Nicholson said, is a felony, according to N.C. General Statute 14-92 (click on the documents to enlarge):

Nicholson also said – and other sources have corroborated – that Redmond and a few of his top cops illegally used county equipment on county time to campaign for Redmond for Sheriff in 2006. They say the State Bureau of Investigation looked into the matter but no one has heard anything from the agency since it investigated.

“I don't have a bit of use for the SBI,” said Nicholson. “I used to want to be an SBI agent. I looked up to them. But the SBI is pathetic. They've literally had things handed to them on Redmond, but they don't do a thing with it.”

When asked if he had ever been asked to participate in criminal behavior during his 16 years under Redmond, Nicholson said: “He knew better than to ask me to participate.”

Intimidation, bullying tactics

At least two Nicholson supporters have stated they were bullied by Redmond and at least one of his sergeants during the campaign season before the May primary. In one instance, the sheriff apparently pulled into the driveway of a man who had a large Nicholson campaign sign in his yard. According to that man, the sheriff said: “I hope you have everything tied down around here.”

Another man with a Nicholson sign in his yard said a sheriff's sergeant visited him and stated: “If your house is broken into, who's going to come out and investigate?”

But if Redmond and his top brass are such bullies, why did Nicholson continue working at the sheriff's office, under Redmond, for so many years?

Nicholson said he loved his job as an ICSO detective but he felt suffocated by the atmosphere that the current administration creates there. He said he also has immense respect for the people that he worked beside at the sheriff's office. “I've watched employees get stepped on around there while the ones that should've been in trouble got by with whatever,” Nicholson said. “The good ones were severely reprimanded or fired for some reason.

When he began to campaign for sheriff, Nicholson asked his colleagues not to publicly support him. “Most people there are job-scared,” he said. “I asked them not to support me publicly because of fear of retaliation.

“As expected,” Nicholson added, “that fear came true.”

He is referring to Redmond's decision, immediately after the primary, to drop the certifications of several part-time/reserve officers who supported Nicholson during the campaign. (See “Sheriff on collision course with Constitution?” at http://thegattonreport.blogspot.com/2010/06/sheriff-on-collision-course-with.html.)

“I hoped if I resigned it would take some of the heat off some of my friends and supporters who either worked there or used to work there and their certifications were being held by the sheriff,” Nicholson said. “Redmond has a reputation of using bullying tactics against anybody that opposes him in any way, shape or form.”

But if that's true, why didn't Redmond fire Nicholson? That's simple, said the former candidate for sheriff: “Federal law states that a person can't be fired because of … political reasons.” However, Nicholson added, “when re-swearing comes back around in November, he could have chosen not to swear me in. He can do that for any reason.”

Nicholson said when Redmond first took office in 1994, “he didn't re-swear 15 people, but two of them were re-hired due to public outcry.” Of the 13 others, Nicholson said, “two of them were arguably the hardest-working, most honest and fair men there. And they were let go for no other reason than to make room for Redmond and his cronies coming with him.”

So why now? Why didn't Nicholson take this strong of a public stance when he was running for sheriff? “The public needs to know what's going on at the sheriff's department,” Nicholson said. “My hope was that Redmond could be removed without a bunch of embarrassment to the county and at the expense of the county and other people.”

Staying more in the background and running a more above-board campaign, Nicholson said, “was the decent way to try to get it done. But since that failed,” he added, “the sheriff's department needs to be exposed for what it is.”

Nicholson said he wants Iredell taxpayers to know how their money is being spent. “The taxpayers are are paying for everything that's getting done – legal and illegal,” Nicholson said. “And they need to know.”

Nicholson said the sheriff is in the office “for two hours, tops, most days – usually from 9 or 9:30 a.m. to 11 or 11:30 a.m..” He said it is frustrating to watch Redmond claim the glory for the work of the rank-and-file at the sheriff's office.

“I'm sick and tired of Redmond taking all the credit when he knows hardly a thing about what's going on,” Nicholson said. “He wouldn't have a clue what he said until he reads it in the newspaper. The Record & Landmark knows that's going on but does it anyway.” In doing so, Nicholson said, “they're printing a bunch of falsehoods.”

Nicholson pointed to one instance in particular that he said demonstrated the height of Redmond's narcissism. While detectives were interviewing a suspect in the murder of four Iredell residents, “the sheriff interrupts the interview to get a picture of himself, leading the suspect in, for the newspaper," said Nicholson. "He interrupted an interview with a murder suspect,” Nicholson repeated, this time growing visibly more frustrated, “for a photo opp.”

What's worse, said Nicholson, when the suspect was taken back to the interview, “she had clammed up.”

Nicholson said he firmly believes the detectives were on their way to securing a confession, but they didn't get it because of the sheriff's desire to have his face in the newspaper.

When asked about the remaining candidates for sheriff – Redmond, Democrat Bill Stamey and Unaffiliated Skip Alexander – Nicholson said he likes both Stamey and Alexander. But he wouldn't comment on the candidate that has earned his vote. What Nicholson made clear, however, are his plans to run for sheriff in 2014 when the seat is again up for re-election. “You've got to stand up for what's right,” Nicholson said. “If everybody who knew something would stand up and talk, Redmond would be gone from office.”

The Report has sent Redmond a list of Nicholson's allegations, asking for responses. His response, if provided, will be posted here.

McCall: Incumbent's actions "too little, too late"

Matt McCall, the Republican challenger for Iredell County Register of Deeds, issued the following statement on Friday in response to the article "Register of Deeds fires back with facts" (http://thegattonreport.blogspot.com/2010/09/register-of-deeds-fires-back-with-facts.html):

"According to the current officeholder, there have been only been 18 requests to the Register of Deeds office for online redaction of Social Security numbers since 2005. The lack of public awareness is unquestionable. In my investigation of this matter, I talked with two county commissioners and the county manager, and they all had not heard of a budget request for this serious problem. I’m glad to know that this important item was finally included in this year's budget. I’m surprised that it is costing Iredell nearly twice what another county of similar population has already paid, which is an important consideration as well.

"This situation should have been dealt with immediately, and yet for almost a year since the statute was amended allowing online redaction, my opponent failed to act. How many Iredell residents were the victims of identity theft while she did nothing? Protecting our citizens' identities are important enough to warrant an appearance before the Board of Commissioners to request an appropriation or shift other funds that were wasted, including a needless car and travel allowance, over a year ago before this law even went into effect. In fact, budget amendments are common in every bi-weekly board meeting. According to [Iredell Finance Director] Susan Blumenstein, 69 amendments were made before the board for FY2010 alone.

"My opponent has had since at the latest October of 2009 to rectify this, but her department didn’t make the purchase order until exactly one month ago (see attached purchase order). In this case it’s clear that proactive effort and common sense are lacking. My opponents actions are too little, too late."

(Click the copy of the purchase order below to enlarge.)