CRIMINAL BENEATH THE BADGE

November 2017 updated complaints against VPD Aldridge:

According to an article published in the Columbian Newspaper regarding the 2016 overturned conviction of Clark County's Lester Juan Griffin, Jr.:

Policies in Doubt over Overturned Conviction
September 14, 2016


Prosecutors statewide are scratching their heads after the Washington Court of Appeals overturned a local criminal case, muddying the waters for what type of police misconduct can be brought up during a defendant's trial.


The court found last week that the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney's Office in 2009 did not provide evidence the defense could have used to potentially discredit a testifying police officer - known in the courts as a Brady violation.

Prokop, Jessica. "Policies in Doubt over Overturned Conviction." The Columbian (Vancouver, WA). McClatchyTribune Information Services. 2016. HighBeam Research. 24 Mar. 2017 <https://www.highbeam.com>.

In spite of the fact that the ruling in the Griffin case identified a requirement for disclosure of open Internal Affairs investigations regarding any officer who would be testifying in court REGARDLESS of the allegations, status or outcome of the IA investigation, the Clark County criminal justice system appears to be ignoring this precedent. 

In the Griffin ruling, it was noted that VPD Officer Jeffrey Wilken had three open IA investigations during the same time he testified against Mr. Griffin.  Further, Wilken's testimony was used by Prosecutor in the case, Tony Golik, to "rehabilitate" the testimony of other witnesses who were questionable. Wilken would later be removed from his position as a VPD officer as a result of proven misconduct.

Due to an absence of accountability within the VPD, Detective Sandra Aldridge is not on a law enforcement BRADY LIST in spite of the number of times allegations of her misconduct have warranted investigation (which far exceeds the three year listing above).  Detective Aldridge has, in the past three years, testified in countless trials.  Aldridge's conduct and testimony has been brought into question through allegations of fabrication of evidence, evidence tampering, witness intimidation & retaliation, perjury, false reporting, and other forms of official misconduct.  These allegations of misconduct have been formally brought before the Clark County Superior Court, Court of Appeals Division II, the WA Supreme Court, US Federal District Court of Western Washington, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Since March of 2017, this reporter has inquired on 4 separate occasions to the Vancouver City Attorney's Office and the Clark County Prosecutor's Office requesting information regarding the impact of the Griffin ruling on the existing BRADY POLICY. There has been no response.

According to the Griffin decision, Detective Sandra Aldridge SHOULD NOT BE TESTIFYING in court without full disclosure of her open Internal Affairs investigations.


PLAY VIDEO BELOW:




Does the City of Vancouver have specific attorneys on the payroll just to handle litigation resulting from violations of civil rights by Detective Sandra Aldridge?

VPD Officer Sandra Aldridge continues to compound liability for the City of Vancouver, Vancouver Police Department and the citizens of our community. Her misconduct remains UNCHECKED, while City leaders pour taxpayer dollars into full time legal defense to cover liability associated with the pattern and practice of violation of civil rights that Aldridge leaves in her path.  In addition to the 20+ internal affairs complaints filed against Aldridge with the Vancouver Police Department, complaints of misconduct under "Color of Law"  SPECIFICALLY NAMING DETECTIVE SANDRA ALDRIDGE have been brought forth in each of the civil and criminal cases listed below over the past four years:

List of alleged violations include:  False arrest, falsification of evidence, manufacturing of evidence, falsifying police reports, perjury, subornation of perjury, making sexual advances to an alleged DV victim, unlawful search and seizure, due process violations, false statements on search warrants, mishandling evidence, false statements regarding certifications, violations of state and federal Privacy Act, unlawful tampering with Criminal History Database (ACCESS) records, unlawful extradition and interstate fraud.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals
**Civil Appeals specifically naming Detective Aldridge regarding alleged misconduct under "Color of Law"

Bini V. City of Vancouver, Et Al [includes Sandra Aldridge] No. 17-35517

Federal US District Court of Western Washington
**Civil suits specifically naming Detective Aldridge regarding alleged misconduct under "Color of Law"

Bini V. City of Vancouver, Et Al [includes Sandra Aldridge] No. 3:16-CV-05460-BHS
Osborne V. Vancouver Police, Et Al [includes Sandra Aldridge] No. 3:15-CV-05877-BHS-KLS
Smith V. Daniel Lloyd Et Al [includes Sandra Aldridge] No. 3:18-cv-05224-BHS-TLF
Smith V. Brian Walker Et Al [includes Sandra Aldridge] No. 3:18-cv-05211-BHS-DWC
Smith V. Sandra Aldridge Et Al No. 3:18-cv-05191-RJB-TLF

Tort Claim Filed with intent to sue in Federal US District  Court of Western WA
**Tort claim specifically naming Detective Aldridge regarding alleged misconduct under "Color of Law"

Ilya Petrenko & Stephanie Salyers V. City of Vancouver, Et Al (to be filed in Federal District Court)

Federal US District Court of Oregon
**Civil suits specifically naming Detective Aldridge regarding alleged misconduct under "Color of Law"

Smith V. Sandra Aldridge No. 3:17-CV-01485-HZ

Clark County Superior Court (Civil Action)
**Civil suits specifically naming Detective Aldridge regarding alleged misconduct under "Color of Law"

Hall V. City of Vancouver, Et Al No. 16-2-05712-1


Washington State Court of Appeals Division II
**Clark County conviction appeals in which Detective Aldridge is specifically named regarding alleged misconduct leading to conviction

State v. Sandra Weller 44726-6
State v. Deron Parks 45348-7-II (reverse and remand)
State v. John Garrett Smith 47205-8-II (reverse and remand)
State v. Nicholas Andrew Oxford No. 47291-1-II
State v. Derek Mark Loughrey No. 47339-9-II
State v. Lawrence Diese  47432-8-II
State v. Derek Hall No. 48733-1-II
State v. Stephanie Salyers No. 49799-9-II
State v. Jesse Ethan Butler No. 50328-0-II
State v. Calvin Luarca  (# pending)

Clark County Superior Court
**Clark County Superior Court convictions reached per plea deal in which Detective Sandra Aldridge has been identified regarding alleged misconduct increasing risk of wrongful conviction, therefore influencing decision to accept a plea deal:

State v. Derek Hall (plea deal) No. 13-1-02211-7
State v. Charles Shelly (plea deal) No. 15-1-01277-1
State v. Dominique Massey (plea deal) No. 14-1-02060-1
State v. Lucas Osborne (plea deal)  No. 15-1-01915-5
State v. Tara Wills-Chaney (plea deal) No. 13-1-01760-1

Note:  This is a preliminary list and will likely be expanding as more information comes forward, and as more civil lawsuits are filed.

WHAT AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN THIS IS FOR THE ATTORNEYS EMPLOYED BY THE CITY AND COUNTY, AS WELL AS THE TAXPAYERS ULTIMATELY FOOTING THE BILL. 





[Link]   The Columbian: Ruling Stands in Spencer Case
Different player, same game...

A July 3, 2017 Columbian article [link above] reports Clark County's latest failure in its attempt to avoid payment of the $9 million jury award to Ray Spencer and his family.  In reviewing Clark County's original refusal to pay the award back in 2014, journalist Jessica Prokop states, "...the Clark County Commissioners unanimously voted to not pay the $9 million.  Then-Commissioners Tom Mielke, David Madore and Steve Stuart voted to no longer protect Krause and Davidson by paying the award. County Prosecutors argued that since Krause was found to have fabricated evidence, she was outside the scope of her duties as a county employee."

Detective Sandra Aldridge of the Vancouver Police Department has been, over the past several years and currently, at the center of over 20 VPD internal affairs investigations, multiple federal and state civil rights actions, and at least two overturned convictions.  In each of these instances, Aldridge is alleged to have fabricated evidence, lied under oath, and/or engaged in a plethora of civil rights violations, yet Detective Aldridge continues to escape formal reprimand or consequence. 

It is no wonder that VPD command staff, local government officials and prosecutors are trying to ratify past and present misconduct and deny all liability. The premise that has been clung to in Ray Spencer's civil case, and other current cases, is: 

If a detective believes someone is guilty,  she/he is free to lie, fabricate evidence and disregard civil rights in general, in order to secure a conviction. 

The Honorable Judge Andrew Hurwitz of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals called this premise "Astonishing"... and he was absolutely right.   




DETECTIVE SANDRA ALDRIDGE HAS A "POCKET FULL OF PINK SLIPS"

In spite of an email memo sent by VPD Barbara Kipp in March of 2014 warning officers not to sign children over to CPS when there is no probable cause,  just three weeks later, Detective Sandra Aldridge brazenly voices her unlawful/unethical tactics (email #2). Aldridge's strategy, outlined below...

First move: Turn off MDC [police dispatch communication]

Second move: Get kid

THIRD MOVE: Figure out which order you "get" the people who made the mess

 ...describe the actions carried out by Aldridge when she was the sole decision-maker and signer regarding the removal of the Petrenko children from the custody of their parents on Feb. 16, 2016. 

Ironically, Barbara Kipp is the lead investigator for VPD's Professional Standards Unit as they investigate the actions of the DV Unit's warrant-less, forced entry of the Petrenko home and the subsequent wrongful arrests of both parents and placement of the children with CPS.

PLAYGROUND BULLY


Bibb County, Macon GA 2000

Clark County, Vancouver, WA 2013

Bibb County, Macon GA 2005

Cornelius v. State

616 S.E.2d 148 (2005) 273 Ga. App. 806
CORNELIUS v. The STATE. No. A05A0468.
Court of Appeals of Georgia. June 21, 2005.

BERNES, Judge.

A Bibb County jury convicted Kendal Bernard Cornelius of one count of aggravated battery and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Cornelius appeals challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for aggravated assault and contending he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, we affirm.

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. We address only the sufficiency of the evidence, and do not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses. As long as there is some evidence, even though contradicted, to support each necessary element of the State's case, the jury's verdict will be upheld. Carter v. State [246 Ga.App. 891(1), 543 S.E.2d 42 (2000); see] also
Jackson v. Virginia [443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)].
Maynor v. State, 257 Ga.App. 151, 151152, 570 S.E.2d 428 (2002).

So viewed, the record reflects that in October 2002, Cornelius provided $200 worth of cocaine to John Jerry Hunt in Macon. As part of the transaction, Hunt and his fiancée, Lana
Renee Lambert, drove Cornelius to a local Western Union, ostensibly to pick up the money to pay Cornelius. On the pretext that Lambert would go into the Western *150 Union and get the money, Hunt had Cornelius get out of his single cab pickup truck in order to let Lambert out of the vehicle. However, Hunt then drove off, leaving Cornelius on the street and unpaid.

Hunt returned to Macon to buy cocaine on December 16, 2002. Lambert again accompanied him, this time bringing her seven year old daughter as well. During the day,
Hunt twice bought drugs in the neighborhood where he had gotten drugs from Cornelius in
October. That evening, Hunt, along with Lambert and her daughter, drove back to the same neighborhood to make a third purchase. After initially circling the block, Hunt brought his truck to a stop when two men approached him from the curb of the street. At that point,
Cornelius stepped between the two men, said "Remember me," and fired a handgun at close range four or five times into the cab of the truck. Hunt was hit, and as a result, was paralyzed in one of his legs. Hunt pushed Lambert's daughter to the floorboard of his truck as the shooting took place. Neither Lambert nor her daughter were hit.

1. Cornelius contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the two counts of aggravated assault. The indictment alleged that Cornelius assaulted Lambert and her daughter with a deadly weapon by shooting at them.

The offense of aggravated assault under OCGA § 16521 has two essential elements: (1) that a simple assault under OCGA § 16520 was committed on the victim and (2) that it was aggravated by . . . (b) use of a deadly weapon as provided in OCGA § 16521. . . .

Maynor v. State, supra at 153, 570 S.E.2d 428. "A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either . . . [a]ttempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or . . . [c]ommits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury." OCGA § 16520(a)(1), (2).

Cornelius contends there was no evidence that he intended to shoot or shot at Lambert and violent injury. We disagree.

As an initial matter, Lambert testified that the perpetrator shot at her. Furthermore, in light of the testimony at trial concerning the number of rounds Cornelius fired into the confined space of Hunt's single cab pickup truck, the jury was authorized to conclude that Cornelius was shooting indiscriminately at the occupants of the truck. The jury was also authorized to "surmise" based on Lambert's testimony "that the victim[s]/witness suffered apprehension of being shot."[1]Roberts v. State, 267 Ga. 669, 671 (1), 482 S.E.2d 245 (1997). Any rational trier of fact could have found Cornelius guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon upon Lambert and her daughter. Jackson v.
Virginia, supra.

2. Cornelius contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his trial counsel (a) failed to object to certain testimony provided by a Macon Police Department investigator; (b) elicited testimony from the investigator on cross examination that was favorable to the State; and (c) failed to advise Cornelius of his right to plead not guilty under
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).

To establish an ineffectiveness claim, the defendant must show that trial counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced his defense. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Smith v. Francis, 253 Ga. 782, 783, 325 S.E.2d 362 (1985). Because Georgia does not recognize the cumulative error doctrine, we analyze each of Cornelius' claims of ineffective assistance separately under the Strickland standard. Howren v. State, 271 Ga.App. 55, 58(5), 608 S.E.2d 653
(2004).

*151 (a) Cornelius argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to certain portions of a Macon Police Department investigator's testimony.

He first contends his trial counsel should have objected to a response by the investigator that he argues expressed an opinion on the ultimate issue and permissibly bolstered the
State's evidence. On direct examination, the State's attorney asked the investigator if she had made "a decision about a possible suspect" after interviewing Lambert and three other witnesses. The investigator replied "That Lil K," who she had identified as Cornelius, "was responsible for shooting Mr. Hunt."

Cornelius' trial counsel testified he did not object to the investigator's response because it "fit just right with . . . the strategy I had for trying to minimize Detective Aldridge's investigating process." Trial counsel explained his trial strategy was to show that the investigator had "jumped to the conclusion" that Cornelius was guilty and set out to develop facts to support her theory rather than following other leads based on the evidence, including several potential suspects with lengthy criminal records.

Clark County, Vancouver, WA 2016





VPD Detective Sandra Aldridge and Sgt. Andy Hamlin 
have more than earned spots on a BRADY LIST

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

VPD Detective Sandra Aldridge: Where there's smoke, there's an inferno

John Garrett Smith Appeals to SCOTUS with Writ of Certiorari

Man Stabbed by Girlfriend, Held on $100K Bail