Office of Prcfesslonal Standards

lnternalAffairs James Mendrick

S}IERIFF

Office of the Sheriff

County of DuPage

COh{FTI}EI{TIAL
RNTOKT
2214055

Submitted to the Sheriff Prepared By: Dep. Chief Daniel Bilodeau #449

1 of26
 Office of Professlonal Standards
lntemalAffairc

Preliminary:
The DuPage County Sheriffs Office (DPSO) received several notifications of pending
audits from the Federal Bureau of lnvestigation (FBl), Department of Justice (DOJt
and the ll,tinois State Potice (lSP) LEADS administration. Emaits (attached) were
received on Juty 22 and Juty 28 of 2022 in reference to these audits. Not onty is the
Sheriff's Office being audited, but the lSP LEADS is as wet[. ln addition to the
attached lnformation Technotogy Audit instructions and various audit information
provided by both the lsP and FBl, attached was a 4 page 'N-DEx" Usage Form and
"Transaction Survey." The "Transaction Sutyey" has a tisting of 10 records the
FBI/DOJ are requesting further exptanation on. This tist is also attached to this
report,

On August 2, 2022, DPSO LEADS Administrator Jennifer O'Keefe came to Deputy

Chief Swanson and I with the attached tisting showing the 10 records and of the 10,
2 records were attributable to Detective Jeff Carpenter #347, 3 records to
Lieutenant Christopher VanHoose #603, and 5 records to Deputy Steven Rottar #053.
Under the category of "Query Reasonr" Detective Carpenter had his reasons tisted
as "2a21-12147: Assist to Lake county," and "sopc2z06465 Er.der Fraud." under the
entries for Lt. VanHoose and Deputy Rottar the reason tisted for each event is simpty
"lnvestigation." As Detective Carpenter had proper entries in his search reason
request, no further information was requested on those entries.
*lt must be noted that in July of 2021
Lt. VanHoose hod been ordered to no longer
run any criminol history information, and per yaur order he was to wark wlth
Deputy Chief Swanson for any needs in this area. ln addition, hts LEADS certification
is no longer valid and has been expired since October llth, ZAZI.

Based on the nature of this matter, you were advised of the situation at
approximatety 1337 hours on 81212022 at whlch time the authorization was given to
speak to Lt. VanHoose regarding this matter.

At approximately 1340 hours, DC Swanson and I went to tatk to Lt. VanHoose in the
Gang Unit office regarding this matter. After explaining that the Office was being
audited pertaining to various inquiries, Lt. vanHoose seemed aloof anJ
unconcerned. The seriousness of this matter was emphasized to Lt. VanHoose and
he wq! :!ked to Produce the reports for the individuais tisted on the audit, starting
with JI Lt vanHoose stated he possibty had notes, but not reiorts.

At this time, I asked him if he did, or had compteted, any reports on any of the
reported investigations he and his unit conducted and initiaity he had no aniwer for
that question.

He was again asked for any reports on and after a couple of minutes
of accessing various files on his com r, was unable to locate any reports or
fites retevant to my question or toII At this time, I totd Lt. VanHoose
to move on to the next subject and to provide an investigative case file on I

lf,Ir\
q# 2ot26
 :

Offlce of Profeeslonal Standards

lnternalAffalrs

I IstoppedAfter approximately one minute of "searching" through his computer, I

Lt VanHoose and asked him if he would have any fites or reports on any of
l
l
the subjects on the N-DEx audit tist, which was never shown to Lt. VanHoose. Lt.
1

i
VanHoose paused, [ooked down, and responded "No."
I
I At this time, he was ordered by both mysetf and DC Swanson to send an email to the
i
t
entire Gang Unit ordering they are no longer atlowed to run any criminal history
i requests on anyone or to use any database to search for information on anyone. Lt.
: VanHoose was also advised to consider thjs an internal investigation and he was
ordered to speak to no one regarding this matter except DC Swanson or l. He stated
:
that he understood.

:
We asked him which system he was utilizing to gather the criminat history
information and he stated it was "LEEP.'When asked who gave permission for LEEP
access he stated now retired Corrections Chief Shawnna Davis gave him
i authorization to have LEEP Access. He was asked if he ever read the instructions
and requirements to use LEEP, and he stated, "No,"

When asked how he accessed the LEEP system, Lt. VanHoose showed us his sign-on
screen. At this time D€ Swanson pointed out the box that has to be checked stating
you understand the requirements before you sign.on to the system.
:

: After further conversation with Lt VanHoose, who was not able to provide any
reports, notes, or documentation pertaining to any investigations conducted by
I
i
himsetf or his unit, DC Swanson and I teft his office.
1
I

I At approximately 1358 hours, I advised you via phone of the findings thus far. You
instructed me to have further conversation with Lt. VanHoose and to have him
I
complete reports for the inquiries he was responsible for. ln this discussion I al,so
advised you of the fact that Lt. VanHoose had previousty been ordered not to run
criminat histories by Undersheriff Moore, DC Swanson, DC Schoenenberger, and
myself, to which you ordered another stop to this and indicated that there may be
disciptine for insubordination based on that order. The'initlat inquiry continued.

At approximately 1405 hours Lt VanHoose was catted to my office to meet with DC

Swanson and mysetf. Upon his arrivat, Lt VanHoose was asked where the reports he
generates are sent for approvat. He stated the reports are sent to Chief Garcia and
from there he "guessed' the reports went into the inmate fite. Lt. VanHoose onl,y
recatled one report being sent back for corrections by chief Garcia.

Lt. VanHoose was then advised to have att reports compLeted for the subjects he ran
through N'DEx that were tisted on the audit form before the end of his shift today
(8/212022, and stid under my office door, He was further advised that the
information in the reports had to be verifiabte and justifiabte information as to why
criminal histories or inquiries were ran. Additionally, he was advised that we would
be verifying the accuracy of the information within his reports.

dr$\
Qff 3 of26
 Office of Professional Standads
lnternal Affalre

DC Swanson retrieved a Detective Division case file as an exampl,e of what a proper

investigative case file contains" DC Swanson showed Lt VanHoose the contents of a
proper case file. Lt VanHoose was once again asked if there were any reports
documenting the criminal histories, inquiries, and investigations and he replied,
ttNo."

At this point I asked Lt VanHoose if he had any justification, including reports, for
this unit within the jait, He stated, "No Sir."

I again I asked Lt VanHoose if he had any justification for this unit in the jait. At this
point Lt VanHoose began to state "wet[ for the safety and security of the facility..."
I stopped Lt VanHoose mid-sentence and asked, "lsn't that something that can be
handted by the other deputies and the Classification Unit and aren't they att
responsible for this?" and he reptied "Yes, sir."

I then asked Lt VanHoose one final time if he had any justification for this unit in
the jait, advising him that his answer was going in my report and he stated, "No,
5ir."

I asked Lt VanHoose when Deputy Rottar was returning to work. He advised that
Deputy Rottar would be back from vacation on Monday (August 8,20221. I advised
hlm to have Deputy Rottar in rny office on Monday at 0800hrs. He was further advised
that as the supervisor of the unit, he shoutd be present {this portion has since been
rescinded as Lt VanHoose is currently on Administrqtive Leave), He stated he woul,d
be. Lt. VanHoose was ordered not to speak to anyone except DC Swanson or mysetf
about this investigation to which he understood. At this time, he teft my office.

At approximatety 1512 hours Detective Carpenter was contacted and asked to report
to DC Swanson's office. Detective Carpenter was given the names and report
numbers for his 2 inqulries listed on the audit and was asked to provide copies of
the reports. These reports were returned to me within 10 minutes and are part of
the case fite. White further information on the inquiries is not required by the FBI
for the audit, to complete this investigation they were made a part of the overatl
fite.

At approximately 1525hrs I advised you of the current status at which time you
stated that proper disciptine woutd need to be issued folinsubordination. I advised
you that there may be muttipte poticy viotations at the conctusion of our
investigation.

Upon my return to work an 08tA3/2022 at approximatel.y 0630hrs 3 reports from Lt.

VanHoose were located under my door.

DC Swanson and I ran all I individuats tisted on the N-DEx audit form in Offender
Trak to determine if they were in custody at the time of the inquiry in N-DEx.

,ffi\ 4 ot26
\#
 Offlce of Profegslonal Standards
lntsrnalAffalrs

For the inquiries conducted by l.t Shriitgphe!,*-YqrllJg$g the foltowing individuats

were searched with the resutts noted:

Arrested on 04 / QZ / 2022, release d 04 I A3 / ?:022 rso bvit Yqnttpgse

Arrested Allfi/2A7?, reteased 051181707?, ran by Lt VanHoose

Arrested on 01 12512A22, released on 01 12512A22, ron bv Lt

ffi
5

For the inquiries conducted by 0eputv Steven 4q!tg{ the fotlowing individuats were
searched with the results noted:

I ]rrested on aslfina22, stitl'in custody at the time of this report, ran

ryiiiiii'"lgtJ::lm;,ror2,
onQ5l20l2A22.
rereased 06ta7n022, ran by Depury Rotrar

! arlested on 06/01 tzol7, released on 06/01 tlzgzz, rqn bv Der|rgr

Rottar on O6f4il2022^ 2 davs after his releasg from custodv.
-onASl2T/2A22. by Deputy Rottar

arrested on Ailfit2022 reteased on ailfil2022 ran by Deputy

IRottar onA6/1512022.
I
Based on our initiat findings, a [etter was prepared requesting this matter be
formatly assigned to the Office of Professionat Standards and Conduct for a format
investigation. DC Swanson and I met with you in your office at approximatety 1140
hours and provided an update to this point. You authorized the intbinat investigation
and approved the paid administrative leave for Lt. VanHoose. ln addition, you
advised us to retrieve his assigned Office cettutar phone for text and emait review.
You also instructed us to look into any possible suppression of work activities for this
unit by the Corrections Command Staff.

At 1205 hours lT Director JasonSnow was directed to copy the emait accounts for
Lt. VanHoose, Deputy Rottar, and Deputy Benetatos (al,so a futl-time member of the
Corrections Gang Unit).

At approximatety 1315 hours Deputy Chief Swanson and I responded to Lt VanHoose's

residence and served him with the letter ptacing him on administrative leave. We
retrieved his phone, credentiats, keys, and badges and advised him that he woutd
be contacted for a formal interview. He asked ifhe coutd have an attorney present
and he was advised that he coutd. This brief encounter was recorded-on body
camera.

r6ruh
t.$ff 5 of26
 Offlce of Professional Standards
lnternal Affains

On 08/0412027, upon my return to work after conversation with Deputy Chief

Swanson, we had Facilities Manager Mike Peters change the tock on the Gang Unit
office door until we could review more pap€rwork. lt is unknown who currently has
keys to this office. At approxirnatety 1000 hours the cetl phone assigned to Lt.
VanHoose was given to DFU Detective Jasen Beymer #510 to extract text messages
and any relevant data.

At approximatety 1155 hours Deputy Chief Swanson and lwent to the Gang Unit
office to took for vacation sheets for Deputy Rottar, as Civitian Dana Cortino
(Corrections Admin Assistant) did not have documentation for his days off. White in
the office we obserued a backpack and a black external hard drive were missing that
were present the day before. I tried to catl Lt. VanHoose and the catl went directty
to voicemail. I sent him a text to ca[[ me as soon as possibte. Lt. VanHoose
immediatety catted me" I asked him about the backpack and the btack hard drive,
and he stated that Deputy Benetatos had retrieved them from the office for hirn. I
asked if that was an office hard drive that he had connected to the network. He
I
advised that it was his perrcnal hard drive. I totd Lt. VanHoose I woutd be contacting
:
l Deputy Benetatos and asking him to return the items to me or DC swanson.
:

.
I then asked him if he would be avaitabte for an interview on Tuesday August 9th,
2022, at 1000 hrs. Lt. VanHoose advised he woutd be meeting with an attorney on
: Monday (8/8/20221and he woutd be getting back to me regarding his avaitabitity.
j
l
l
I
At approximately 1242 hours I was abte to contact Deputy Benetatos. Deputy
i Benetatos advised he did retrieve the items. At that time, he was instructed to bring
I
I them back to myself or DC Swanson. Deputy Benetatos was advised due to the nature
I
I
i
of this internal investigation if he was abte to come into work earty, he coutd ftex
, his hours for this date or receive overtime. Deputy Benetatos catted back at
j
::

approximatety 1253 hours stating that he woutd be on his way to return the items.

At approximatety 1300 hours I received mul.tipte pages of printouts of text messages

,l

: from Detective Beymer regarding this matter.

:
:

: At approximatety 1400 hours I met with Deputy Benetatos and retrieved 2 btack
t
externat hard drives, one that was ptugged into the office computer and one that
l
was in the backpack. The backpack and items inside were left with Deputy Benetatos
to return to Lt. VanHoose. Deputy Benetatos was tet into the Gang Unit office and
advised not to close the door as he woul,d be Locked out.

On 8/812022DC Swanson advised Mike Peters to change the tock back to the gang
office door key as we had no further need to hoLd the information. I had opened the
door so any members assigned to the unit coutd access the office.

On 08108/2022 Deputy Rottar was not in my office at 0800 as Lt. VanHoose was
instructed to advise him. I contacted Civitian Dana Cortino and asked if he had cal,ted
in sick. She advised that she would contact DC. Schoenenberger to try to determine

f:fil.
q#6of26
 Office of Professlonal Standards
lntemal Affairs

if he was at work. At approximately 0811 hours I was catled by DC Schoenenberger

who advised he found Deputy Rottar and was sending him to my office.

A short time tater Deputy Rottar arrived at rny office. Deputy Rottar stated that he
was not advised by Lt. VanHoose to report to my office at 0800 hours. At this time
he was advised he was the subject of an internal investigation and he needed to
comptete reports for the "investigations" that were on the N-DEx audit listing on Lt.
VanHoose's desk. Deputy Rottar was argumentative stating I could not te[[ hirn to
write reports.

Deputy Rottar made the spontaneous utterance "they were not investigations, they
are backgrounds." At this point both Deputy Chief Swanson and I ordered him to go
write the reports. I atso instructed him to review the Office report writing poticy,
which he had acknowtedged, for further instruction.

Deputy Rottar made the spontaneous utterance that he came in on Tuesday to assist
"Homeland Securlty" as they had contacted him and he "donated his tlme." I asked
him to provide the report for that request, but he stated there was not one. (lt must
be noted that on 812/2022 he did not run anyone through N-DEx per their [og,
however he did access the user manuat).

Deputy Rottar advised he would not be ab[e to make the 0800 hours interview time
an 8/912022 because he would be obtaining an attorney. He was advised to notify
me when he and his attorney coutd rneet and again ordered to complete the reports
today. He teft my office advising he would "be back shortty" and took my cetl
number with him.

Deputy Rottar returned to the hatlway outside of my office, adjacent to the squad
room, at approximatety 0832 hours with a union representative, Deputy Rapp, and
attempted to ask questions pertaining to this matter. He was advised, with DC
Swanson present, to go write the reports as ordered white this was not the time to
ask questions. He was once again ordered to go write the reports. He confirmed the
order and left.

At approximately 0850 hours I spoke with DC Schoenenberger and requested total

inmate data for the year (number of bookings) and, if possibte, the totat number of
ctassified gang members. At approximatety 0930 DC Schoenenberger catted me back
and advised that the total number of bookings for the period of January 1,2A22
through August 2, 2022 (the date this investigation commenced) was 4,609. DC
Schoenenberger was atso able to provide an Offendertrak Listing of approximately
100 gang members in custody at this time.

At approximatety 1055 hours I received a cat[ from Commander Cantwett who

advised Corporal Messina, PBLC Union President, calted him to ask about the
interview. He stated the attorney woutd be present and they coutd do the interview

1ffil
E# 7 ot26
 Office of Profersional Standards
lnternalAffrina

on Tuesday 81912A22 at 1300 hours, which we agreed to based on the premise that
this was being requested by Deputy Rottar.

At 1108 hours I received a text message from Lt. VanHoose who advised his attorney
was available for his interview on Thursday at 1100 hours. The interview was set for
that time.

At 1405 hours I received a text from Deputy Rottar stating he was meeting with his
personal attorney and not using a union attorney. He advised that he would be
meeting with his attorney on Wednesday (U1Al2A22'1. I instructed him to provide
dates and times he coutd meet for the interview and we woutd check our schedules.
His response was "Thank you again."

At 1609 hours I received an email from Deputy Rottar with the previousty ordered
reports attached. The first attachment was the report for the work that was
completed pursuant to the HSI request.

The second attachment was a S-page document which was primarity Deputy Rottar's
rebuttal to the meeting in my office where he was ordered to write reports. There
are also 2 futt pages of N-DEx system information that has nothing to do with the
content of the reports he was ordered to author, ln addition, there is no information
given as to why he ran the 5 individuals on the audit report, as he was ordered to
provide.

It shoutd be noted in one section of the N-DEx rutes provided by Deputy Rottar is
actualty viotated by Deputy Rottar (and Lt. VanHoose). Per section 1,3.81 Sgarch
teason Repuirernen$ "The Search Reason shalt inctude information such as, but
not limited to, incident number, arrest transaction number, booking number,
if
project name, routine activity description, and appllcable, the individuat
recipient or agency the search was made "on behalf of..." For att of the inquiries on
the audit noted for Lt. VanHoose and Deputy Rottar, the onty reason provided is
"investigation. "

DePUty Rottar made untruthful statements in this report inctuding that he was
questioned. He was ordered to do his reports for the inquiries in question by the N-
DEx audit, an order that he questioned the vatidity of. At no time did he request a
union steward, nor was this a situation where one was required to be offered as
there were no questions asked pertaining to this particular audit. With regard to his
rights under the Uniform Peace Officers Disciplinary Act, he was, in fact, provided
a blank copy with his tetter notifying him of his upcoming interview. This was done
so that he was made aware of his rights, as is done with atl formal interviews. He
witt be provided his rights again and witt be asked to sign them at that time. Another
untruthful statement by Deputy Rottar is that he was spoken to in a "toud tone."
Deputy Rottar returned to the patrot division hattway with his union steward and
began asking questions. He was advised by both DC Swanson and I that "this was not
the time to ask questions" and he needed to go author the reports he was ordered

ffi I of26
 Office of Profeseional Standards
lntemal Affairc

to author. The order was in fact confirmed and there were multipte witnesses
present including DC Swanson, Staff Sergeant Jasper, and multiple civitian
personne["

Due to the fact his submitted report did not contain the content needed, and he
tied att 5 individuats into one report, the fotlowing emait repty was sent to Deputy
Rottar on8l9l2A22:

"Deputy Rottar,

I have received your reports. There are no issues with the HSI report.

The N-DEx report reads as a memorandum and is not a report. None of the
information in that first paragraph is retevant to the inquiries in the N-DEx system,
nor are the system rutes and requirements. You were ordered to author reports for
each individual you ran that were listed on the N'DEx audit, not one report. You
were atso ordered to note any and alt reasons for running the individual.s through N-
DEx that you ran. There is no justification provided for the inquiries that woul"d rneet
the requirements of the N-DEx system.

You are to comptete the individual reports for each individuat tisted to inctude the
articulable reason or suspicion that they are being run through this system. The
superftuous content is to be removed from your report(s) because it has no bearing
on the content of the report and the investigation that you compteted on each
individuat, ln addition, your attached "PBPA" form is not part of any officiat report
fite and is not to be submitted with your reports.

As Lt. VanHoose is not present, your reports shatl be submitted to Deputy Chief
Schoenenberger for review. "

At approximatety 1215 hours DC Swanson and I met with you in your office to provide
an update to the investigation thus far.

At 1471 hours on 8/912022 I sent Lt. VanHoose a text on his personal phone asking
if he would like a copy of his letter for his OPS interview and a bl,ank copy of UPODA
prior to his interviewon 8/11/2A22 and if so, to provide an emait. He responded
that he would tike it sent to him via the email address he provided, and I advised
him I woutd send it on my return to the office on 8/1AIZAZZ.

At 1440 hours I received an emait with an attachment of the 5 reports from Deputy
Rottar. The reports were submitted to DC Schoenenberger and the email stated the
fotlowing:

"Helto, I have retyped the reports, submitted to DC Schoenenberger, and attached

them to this emait. I was advised by my attorney to inctude the top tine in each
report. Thank you"

ffi 9of26
 Of{ice of Profeeslonal Standards
lnternal Affairs

The line in the reports that the emait is referring to reads as fottows: "This report
is submitted after an original report submitted on 8/8/2022 concerning this matter
was not approved by Deputy Chief Bitodeau."

I responded via email to Deputy Rottar on 8110ftA22 at 0654 with the fotlowing:

"Deputy Rottar, Reports are returned for correction on a daity basis and they do not
inctude the language you have at the top. These reports witl not be approved until
that language is removed.

With att due respect to your attorney, the author:ing of internal reports is to be done
consistent with the practices of the office."

The reports have been printed and are part of this file.

At 0730 hours the fottowing email was sent to Lt. VanHoose:

"Lt. VanHoose,

Pursuant to our text communication on 8/912022, attached is a copy of your letter

to report for an lnternal Affairs interview. As you have requested counsel and a
different date, agreed upon for Thursday August 11th at 1100 hours, I hand wrote
that agreement on the bottom of the letter. Also attached ts a btank copy of your
rights under the Uniform Peace Officers Disciptinary Act.

Shoul,d you have any questions you shoutd contact me directty."

0811412022 Deputy Rottar had previousty notified me that on this date he witt be
meeting with his attorney and woutd advise of dates and times he coutd meet. He
catled in sick for his shift on thls date.

08111120221 contacted DC Schoenenberger to inquire if Deputy Rottar had reported

to work on this date, and he advised he call.ed in sick again. Neither DC Swanson or
I have received any dates or times to meet for his interview,

On 8111120221 received a text message from Lt. VanHoose at 1046 hours stating he
and his attorney were in the tobby. I went to bring them to DC Swanson's office for
the interview. After brief introductions the interview started at approximatety 1100
hours as scheduted.

The interview was recorded using my Axon Body Camera for secure storage and onty
the audio was recorded: The camera was ptaced face down on the desk for a[[ parties
to see (the recordings were impounded as restricted access on the evidence.com
ptatform).

ffi\ 1o or 26
tKS
 Office of Professional Standards
lnternal Affalrs

Present for the interview were DC Swanson and myself, Lt. Christopher VanHoose
and his [ega[ counsel, Joshua Karmet.

The fottowing is a summary of the overatt interview. Attached are transcripts from
the evidence.com recordings. lt shoutd be noted that some names are spelted
incorrectty and some of the transcripts of the tanguage are not accurate, but the
transcripts were not edited to make any corrections. The interview lasted
approximatety 2 hours. Due to a break at approximatety 1200 hours there are 2
recordings. The first portion of the interview pertained to the N-DEx audit and the
work of the Gang Unit within the Correctionat Center. The second portion of the
interview pertained to the text messages retrieved from the Office issued cetl phone
of Lt. VanHoose and some emaits in his Office email account. Lt. VanHoose was read
the forms indicating the reasons for recording the intewiew, assuring that no
promises or threats were made pertaining to his interview and the subject matter.
He was given his UPODA rights which were signed. Questions were started at this
time, ptease refer to the audio recordings for verbatim language and a complete
accounting of the interview.

At 1105 hours Lt. Vanhoose acknowledged he had signed for all of the Office poticies
and procedures and he was aware of the Office truthfutness poticy. Lt VanHoose atso
acknowledged that his LEADS certlfication was expired.
*lt must be noted thot during the cwrse of the interview Lt. YanHoose was told
that his tglDs certification expired in 2A19, however, he actually explred in
October af 2A21.

At 1106 hours Lt. VanHoose was asked if he was totd that if he needed anything
related to LEADS, he was supposed to go to DC Swanson for assistance. He reptied
that he was not totd that and if he needed anything for LEADS he was supposed to
go to Booking.

Through the course of the next 2-3 minutes Lt. VanHoose was reminded of a meeting
with Undersheriff Moore, DC Swanson, DC Schoenenberger, and myself in DC
Schoenenberger's office. Through the course of the discussion Lt. VanHoose
acknowtedged that he was in fact totd to go to DC Swanson for any LEADS access or
information.

We then discussed his contact with Carot Gibbs, ISP LEADS Administrator, in January
of ?022. When asked if he notified DC Swanson of this contact, Lt. Vanhoose stated
he did not and he was instructed to make the contact with Carot Gibbs by the Sheriff.

We then transitioned tothe N-DEx Audits. After general conversation regarding LEEP
and N'DEx system access, we spoke about the rutes and guidetines for use of the
system. He stated he had read the rules.

d$\ 11 of 26
ts#
 Offlce of Professlonal Standarda
lntsrnalAffail:

At 1113 hours he was asked if N-DEx required €urrent certification to access the
system, and he responded, "Yes."

At 1114 hours hewas asked if he had reported to N-DEx that his LEADS certification
had expired, he responded "No I did not."

When asked who instructed him to use the term "investigation" in his reason box,
Lt. VanHoose stated it was an FBI analyst, Brendan Long. We again reviewed the N-
DEx rutes, specificatty the "Search Reason Request" rules. After reading the section
to Lt. VanHoose, I asked him where "investigation" fatts under those rules. His
response was, "lt doesn't under those,"

At approximately 1120 hours we returned to the topic of Office Policies. The first
poticy reviewed was OFF 4-82.3 tatking specificatty about incident reporting. He was
asked to read the first line of paragraph A, and after reading the section, I asked Lt,
VanHoose, "So if you're doing and investigation, does that poticy not say that you
need to write a report for investigation, a[[ incidents investigated by Office
Members?" his response was "Yes." I asked Lt. VanHoose if you deemed something
as an investigation, woutd that necessitate a report? His response was "That I don't
agree with but under your reasoning..." I responded, "lt's not my reasoning Chris, it
is what the poticy reads."

At approximatety 1122 hours we discussed his search criteria for running individuals
through N-DEx. Through the course of the discussion Lt. VanHoose stated "They need
to be an lnmate. We can check every inmate that comes through." He went on to
answer that they were doing "intake investigation." When asked if he woutd agree
that that sounded tike Ctassification, his response was "l agree that ctassification
should probabty be doing that." When asked if he's ever shared information with
the Ctassifications Unit his response was, "if anything has come up, but I don't think
anything has. We haven't gotten anything out of N-DEx so far that woutd of
necessitated it." I asked Lt. vanhoose how often he communicated Mth he
Ctassifications Unit, his response was "several times a week" further ctarifying that
it was via emait, phone calts or face to face. (lt was later determined after discussion
with the Ctassification Unit that this does not happen and that this was not a truthful
answer).

Going back to the N-DEx Audit, Lt. VanHoose was asked if he had ever run any
individuat not in custody. He stated that he made a mistake and agreed to those
who were run out of custody woutd be in viotation of N-DEx Poticy.

At 1125 hours lasked Lt. VanHoose if there any verification process for him and his
unit to determine if offenders were stitl in custody before being ran in N-DEx, His
response was, "No there is no verification process. But there shoutd be."

At 1128 hours we confirmed that 2 of the 3 individuats on the audit were out of
custody when Lt. VanHoose ran them through N-DEx.

rh
w 12 of 26
 Office of Profecsional Standards
lntemalAffairc

At 1131 hours we discussed the submission of written reports by his unit, and Lt,
VanHoose in particutar. On Augustl,2A27 DC Swanson and I had asked Lt. VanHoose
who he submits his reports to, his repty at the time was Chief Garcia. Lt. VanHoose
admitted through conversation that there were no N-DEx reports submitted to Chief
Garcia' (ln speaking with Chief Garcia, he coutd not recatl any reports on the unit
and their activities,being submitted. Chief Garcia stated that this year he had only
received "maybe 3" but they were "informational" and did not peitain to any unit
work or investigation. )

At 1136 hours Lt. VanHoose was asked why he sent report temptates to Deputy
Rottar. His response was he had just wanted him to have what he submitGd.
However, at 1137 hours Lt. VanHoose admitted that he was in the office typing the
reports when Deputy Rottar came in. He went on to further state that he wbs tetting
D-gRutV Rottar about the Audit and why they had to write reports. DC Swanson askel
if he viotated a standing order to not discuss this matter wiih anyone. He stated
"l don't think so because I didn't tett him it was in lnternal lnvestigation." DC
Swanson responded to the fact that he discussed the matter with Depuiy Rottar by
tetting him about the N'Dex Audit, that was in fact the substance of tire lnternat
lnvestigation. Lt. VanHoose stated, "l dldn't see it that way at the time, but that is
exactly what happened, So I am not denying I didn't do it." (This is another instance
of insubordination and admitting to disregarding an order.)

At 1145 hours, discussing the Correction poticy for his unit (COR 6.9.ZS) which Lt.
VanHoose acknowledged he authored, and OFF 420 and office poticy Off +-SZ.: l-t.
VanHoose admitted that his Correction Gang Unit Poticy is noi in comptiance with
requirements in OFF 420 and OFF 4-92.3.

This portion of the lnterview concluded with generat discussion about

inconsistencies in poticies as we[[ as definitions located wlthln the poticies. These
areas witt be discussed within the recommendations section of this rbport.

At this polnt there was a break given.

At 1213 hours we returned from the break at which point we discussed the content
of celtphone text conversations located on the offici issued cetlphone issued to Lt.
VanHoose. Lt. VanHoose was shown the cettphone and confirmed it was his. lt shoul,d
be noted that the celtphone did not contain a passcode. Attached to this report are
muttipte pages of text messages (a fult copy is avaitabte in the Office of professional
Standards and Conduct).

See below (starting on page 21 of this report) for a sampting of inappropriate and
egregious text messages in the section identifying poisibte viotaiions'of Offlce
poticy.

#s\ 13 or 26
EWf
 Offlce of Profeesional Standarde
lnternal Affeirs

Lt. VanHoose repeatedty acknowtedged the inappropriateness of the text messages

he sent from his Office issued phone. Lt. VanHoose also acknowtedged he shoutd
have stopped the inappropriate behaviors and that he should not have particlpated
in the conversations with his subordinates.

At approximatety 1221 hours I asked Lt. VanHoose: r'ls it safe to say that you don't
have a whole lot of respect for your Deputy Chief and your commanders in your
division?"

His response was that according to those (sic...texts), no.

I responded: "That's not what I asked you. ls it safe to say that you don't have a
whole tot of respect for your Deputy chief, Tim Schoenenberger, commander
Cantwell, or even Chief Garcia?"

Lt. VanHoose responded: "No, actualty I do."

Af 1222 hours I presented a sheet of the text printouts to Lt. VanHoose and said:
"5o you said you have respect for Garcia, Chief Garcia. Can you read that text?" Lt.
VanHoose read the text sent by him to members of his unit that reads "No, Garcia
is just an idiot." When I responded with the question: "That signifies respect for
your chief to your subordinate staff?" Lt. VanHoose responded: "No, that does not."
This ted to further discussion about both Lt. VanHoose and his unit maklng
disparaging and derogatory remarks about members of the command staff and at no
point did Lt. VanHoose stop this: However, he did state that he shoutd have stopped
it att.
There was extensive discussion on the various text messages, atso reviewed betow
(starting on page 21 of this report), please review the recording for further.

Pertaining to the text messages with Michael Beary, there are many derogatory
statements made about command staff at the Sheriff's Offlce. At one point I asked
Lt. vanHoose, at approximatety 1231 hours, "ls it fair to say that some of the, your
words, 'stupid shit' you say here is embeltished a bit or simpty not true?',

Lt. vanHoose responded "Embeltished, yes, probabty. lf lwas angry, I am saying it."
At approximately'1257 hours the interview was conctuded. Attorney Karmel asked if
they would get a copy of this interview and I stated that if Lt. VanHoose requested
that he would. As of the writing of this report that request has not been received.

On 811 112A22 DC Swanson received an email frorn Terri Ryan of the Herbert Law
Firm regarding Deputy Rottar's interview. This interview was set for 811612072 at
0900 hours. The fottowing interview was sent from Attorney Dan Herbert:

"Thank you, 9 am is fine on the tuesday August 16.

1ffi
qSF 14 or 26
 Offlce of Profesdonal Standards
lnternalAffairs

I planned on sending over a detailed letter identify the flawed nature of the
allegations for lacking specificity and thus we have not been placed on proper notice
with respect to what my client is accused of doing wrong.
I ask that we be provided specific and detailed allegations in this case. Otherurise I
will file a due process argument. Thanks and if you want to speak on this or any
other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Dan Herbert
Attomey
Herbert Law Firm

DC Swanson and I met with ASA Mark Winistorfer regarding the email on 8/1212022
in my office to discuss the matter. He advised that he would contact Mr. Herbert to
ctarify any needed information.

I also received the reports from Deputy Rottar with the tanguage about the reports
being returned removed, as advised by his attorney, removed.

At approximately 1230 hours DC Swanson and I met with Sgt. Alten, #806 and Sgt.
Dorn, #408 in the Ctassification office to inquire about contact with the Gang Unit
for any ctassification needs. ln his interview, Lt. VanHoose stated that he either
spoke with or emailed the Ctassification Unit at teast 2-3 times per week. Sgt. Atten
stated several times this was not true and the onty time she heard from them was
if she contacted them first. She further stated they (the Ctassification Unit) rarety
heard back from the Gang Unit when they did contact them.

On 08i 15lZB22 DC Swanson and I met with Sgt. Atten, Sgt. Weiner, #575, and Sgt.
Lynch, #515 of the Corrections Bureau Ctassifications Unit in the patrol, squad room.
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the frequency of communication between
the Gang Unit and the Ctassification Unit. ln totatity the Classifications Unit stated
that they onty receive communication from the Gang Unit once or twice a month
and generatty onty when they request information, This directty contradicts the
statement from Lt. VanHoose made during his interview that he spoke to or emailed
the Classification Unit at least 2-3 times per week.

On 08/16/2022 at approximatety 0900 hours Deputy Rottar and his Attorney, Daniel
Herbert, arrived at DC Swanson's office. After introductions were made, at
approximatety 0906hours the interview started. The fot[owing is a summary of the
overatl interuiew. Attached are transcripts from the evidence.com recordings. lt
shoutd be noted that some names are spelted incorrectly and some of the transcripts
of the tanguage are not accurate, but the transcripts were not edited to make any
corrections. The interview lasted approximatety ,5 hours. Audio copies of the
interview are availabte,

iffih
15 of 26
Wg
 Office of Professional Standards
lnternal Affairs

Deputy Rottar was read the forms indicating the reasons for recording the interview,
assuringthat no promises or threats were made pertaining to his interview and the
subject matter. He was given his UPODA rights which were signed.

At this point Deputy Rottar was given a handwritten statement, written by Herbert,
which he read out [oud, stating that he was not giving statements voluntarily, but
under duress. He continued he was only giving the statements because he knew he
would be "fired" if he refused. Questions started at this time, ptease refer to the
audio recordings for verbatim language and a complete accounting of the interview.

Deputy Rottar identified his assignment as primarity working with gang activities.
We then spoke specificatly to the LEEP portat and the N-DEx system. Deputy Rottar
was shown a copy of the N-DEx audit listing and verified that it was the same tisting
he had been shown previousty.

I asked Deputy Rottar when he was last LEADS certified and he stated sometime in
2021. When asked if his LEADS certification was currently valid, he stated "No."
Deputy Rottar was also asked if he had read and understood the N-DEx and CJIS rutes
and he stated he did. He was shown his LEADS certificate indicating his certification
had expired March 9,2021.

At approximately 0916 hours Deputy Rottar was asked how many peopte he had run
through N'DEx since January 1st of this year. His response was "a few hundred." He
was further asked what he indicated was his reason for searching individuats in N-
DEx (it shoutd be noted that DC Swanson had the LEEP and N-DEx portals active on
the TV screens in his office.) Deputy Rottar stated he always typed in "investigation"
and was instructed to do so by Lt VanHoose. When asked if he had any reports for
the individuals he had ran outside of the ones tisted on the aud'it tist, he reptied that
he did not in the format I asked him to write them in. Deputy Rottar stated they
took notes and put them on a Word Document for the Gang Unit,

I then showed him the current N-DEx user guide and asked him if it was the most
current manuat, He indicated it was. I then had him read the section on "search
Reason Requirement." At the conctusion of his reading, I asked if anywhere in the
it
section was indicated that using the term "investigation" was enough. His
response was "it doesn't use that word, but it says 'not limited to."'

At approximatety 0919 hours, Deputy Rottar was asked if he had signed for and
acknowtedged att Office policies. He stated, "Yes." At this time I provided Deputy
Rottar with the office poticy (oFF4-82.3) and asked him to read section "A"
regarding writing office reports. After reading the first tine of the poticy, which
reads: "A written report shalt be prepared for al.t incidents reported to or
investigated by members of the Office.',

When asked if what he was doing woutd necessitate a report because he was doing
an investigation, in his terms, he stated "ln those words, yes." when asked what

#-R
q6f 16 of 26
 Office of Professional $tandads
lnternal Affalre

events, besides an individuat being booked, woutd necessitate someone in the Gang
Unit running individuals through N-DEx, he reptied "that's exactly what I am
supposed to be doing, is'identifying gang members." He was then asked if there was
anywhere on the N-DEx system to search for gang member information and his
response was "No."

Deputy Rottar was asked if he woutd run anyone not in custody and he stated "No."
He quickly corrected his statement to note that one of the 5 individuats on the audit
had bonded out before he ran them through N-DEx. I then advlsed him that he has
run 1,400 individuals this year. I then asked again if he had read the rules of N-DEx.
He stated he had. I asked him again if he was required to report to N-DEx if his
certification was vatid as a user, he stated that there was a LEADS requirement, to
which I responded that he was out of certification. He responded that he was up for
renewat. I asked him if he did the renewal, he replied, "No" to which I reptied, "you
are not vatid." ln summary, there was no gang related reason as to why Deputy
Rottar ran every individual who was booked into the jail in N-DEx. He was asked if
there were gang contact cards and information from booking that could be utitized.
After reveral roundabout answers, he did agree that there were stacks of booking
information and gang cards in his office, the Gang Unit office, that were from
booking.

At approximately 0925 hours I asked Deputy Rottar, "But as the user, if your
certification is not valid, shoutd you be accessing the system?" His response was
"Yea, it woutd appear not." When asked if any individuals he ran from March 10,
2021 to present were run without proper credentials, Deputy Rottar reptied "Yea,
it woutd appear so." (This would indicate that for catendar year 7A72, att individuats
run by Deputy Rottar are not in comptiance with the established N-DEx rutes).

At approximately 0926 hours Deputy Rottar was asked if anyone had spoken to him
about this internal investigatlon prior to his meeting with me on August 8th? Deputy
Rottar stated that Lt. VanHoose totd him what was going on. I asked if Lt VanHoose
totd him there was an internal investigation going on, and he replied that he had
told him what was going on with him (this is in direct contradiction to Lt. VanHoose's
statement).

Approximatety 0930 hours there was some extended discussion about his assignment
to the Gang Unit and whether or not the poticy for the Gang Unit in Corrections,
COR 6-9.28 apptied to him and his duties. The answers given by Deputy Rottar
appeared to be given in a manner of disassociation with the unit poticy because he
is currentty "administratively assigned" and not actualty assigned to the unit. Even
when asked where he reports for work (the gang office), where he signs in on the
sign-in sheet (under the Gang Unit) and that he attempted to purchase different
Gang Unit uniforms, he was evasive in his answers as to the application of the poticy
to the work he does. (lt should atso be noted that in his Office email signature,
under his name, the titte 'SR22 Gang lntetligence' is tistedl.

rffi\ 17 of 26
isl$
 Offlce of Profeeeional Standarde
lnternal Aflairs

The last matter discussed with Deputy Rottar was a text message sent to a group
consisting of Lt. VanHoose and several other members of the unit on Juty 14, 2AZZ.
The text message stated "l just had to exptain at oherrons that our office is fucked
up at decided to cancet our orders white 3 different peopte were standing around
listening i *V talk to the tady behind the counter. One of those peopte was Gary
McCarthy. ?,ro

Deputy Rottar was asked if he had signed for Poticy 321, Standards of Conduct, which
he stated he did. Deputy Rottar was instructed to read letter 'N' under 321.6.9. He
was asked if that message would reflect favorabty on the office or its members that
"we're fucked up." He indicated that he did not use that tanguage in front of people,
but when asked if using that term in a group text with several other members of his
unit, if that would reflect favorably on the office, he stated "No."

At this time the interview concluded.

This lnvestigatlon has determined there are violations of the follo\ /ing Office
Policies regarding the N-DEx audit, searches in N-DEx, the fallure to complete
reports, and other violations:

Lt Chrlrtqpher V,snHsp,pe. *S,l

-Aderi"ggel
- Members shall respond to and make a good faith and reasonabte effort
to comply with the lawful order of superior officers and other proper
authority.

-Pe*ormance-lZt.O*

Faiture to disctose or misrepresenting material facts, or making any

false or misteading statement on any appt'ication, examination form,
or other officiat document, report or form, or during the course of any
work-related investi gation.

The fatsification of any work-retated records, making misl.eading

entries or statements with the intent to decelve, or the wittfut and
unauthorized removal, atteration, destruction and/or mutilation of
any Office record, pubtic record, book, paper or document.

Faiture to participate in, or giving fatse or misteading statements, or

misrepresenting or omitting material information to a supervisor or
other person in a position of authority, in connection with any
investigation or in the reporting of any Office-related business.

/dHt
18 or 26
\!Sf
 Oflice of Profeseional Standards
lnternal Affalrs

- Being untruthful or knowingty making false, misleading or malicious

statements that are reasonably calculated to harm the reputation,
authority or officiat standing of this Office or its members.

:,9ffis* fi*pqrtp:OFF 4-&n. 3

A written report shatt be prepared for atl incidents reported to or

investigated by members of the Office
3, Att incidents or actions initiated by Deputies, either criminal
or non-criminal.

-Eff!#Snpv 131.,6,7

Negtect of duty.

Unsatisfactory work performance including but not timited to faiture,

incompetence, inefficiency, or detay in performing and/or carrying out
proper orders, work assignments, or the instructions of supervisors
without a reasonabte and bona fide excuse.

pqp-rrtv steven fh$[sr- #05;

-Effjqiencv 32't.6.2

' Neglect of duty.

Unsatisfactory work performance including but not timited to failure,

incompetence, inefficiency, or detay in performing and/or carrying out
proper orders, work assignments, or the instructions of supervisors
without a reasonable and bona fide excuse.

:Office R€'pqrti:OFF 4-g 2,-3

A written report shatt be prepared for a[[ incidents repoRed to or
investigated by members of the Office
3. Att incidents or actions initiated by Deputies, either criminal
or non-crimina[.

$rders- 200.4.?
Members sha[[ respond to and make a good faith and reasonabte effort
to compty with the lawful order of superior officers and other proper
authority.

rffi\ 1e or 26
\$#
 Office of Prolessional Standards
lntemal Affalrc

Additlgnal FlnClnru, angl&ralvri.sr

Pursuant to your order to revlew possible subversion of the gang prograrn activities,
an anatysis of the staffing assignments and activities was conducted. lt must be
noted the unit supervised by Lt. VanHoose, the Corrections Strategic Operations,
lntelligence, and Desistance Section (SOID) is broken into a variety of units, as noted
betow:

- Yg$a*t_lgli I Ofi!_ceglCCUnit,Cogrdlnator:
Corporal Kolasa, #823
- ConttnlonGqFtrol Unlf {Al4}
Deputy Johns, #055
Deputy Stltto, #998
Deputy Job, 11096
Deputy Torres, #346
- Ccnta*lsn ControlUntt {,Pr14:}
Deputy Lee, #736
Deputy Johnson, #437
- Straterlc Operatlons ( O|D)/SR2Z Gann lnteliigence (GlDl
Lt. VanHoose, #630
Deputy Rottar, #053
Deputy Benetatos, #961

There are multipte other deputies assigned as "Cottate[at" to this unit. Upon review
of the email account of Lt. VanHoose, just going back to Aprit 6, Z0?2, there are
muttipte emails to Chief Garcia indicating the overall unit activities. White many
contain information that is "cut and pasted," it must be noted that there are no
references to the assigned gang unit deputies not being attowed to conduct their
duties. The only jnstances of members not being abte to comptete duties is in
reference to those who are assigned as coltaterat members. They are routinely noted
as being assigned to ports. With the current manpower situation Office wide, this is
no different than members of SWAT, HDU, K9, etc. having to miss training or
coltaterat duties due to manpower. ln the course of this investigation, I have found
no evidence to show the assigned members of the gang unit have been unabte to
perform their duties. ln fact, the full.-time gang unit members are even spending
time worklng with the other Units within the unit.

ln accordance with your order, and pursuant to this investigative process, a review
of the text messages obtained from the Office issued cetl phone
assigned to Lt. VanHoose has shown muttiple text messages between the fottowing
individuats that are determined to be evidence of insubordination and subversive
practices. Copies of the text messages on the part of the fottowing individuals are
attached:
-]
Lt. VanHoose
Deputy Rottar

/$h 2o ot 26
ru#
 Office of Professlonal Strndards
lntemal Affalrc

Deputy Johns
Deputy Benetatos
Deputy Shymkus, #261
Civilian Contractor Michaet Beary

There are multipte text messages between Lt. VanHoose and members of his Unit
which are also evidence of violation of the foll,owing poticies: Conduct,
insubordination, and in the case of Lt. VanHoose, failure to supervise for not only
faiting to correct the behavior and comments made on his Office cetlutar phone, but
for participating in and encouraging the discussions,

Thls is not pertaining to his personat contacts or information, rather the content of
the communications pertaining specificatty to the other members of this Office,
command staff, and his own Unit.

Attached are copies of the more egregious messages located within the
comprehensive text printouts noting who sent them, Att of the dark circtes on the
right side of the page are from Lt. VanHoose. lndividuat users, presumabty from their
personal devices, are noted in their responses.

Betow is a sampling of the egregious text messages sent by Lt. VanHoose or to Lt.
VanHoose and which he reptied to on his Office phone:

'4512912471 0505hrs, Deputy Johns advised that he was tocked out of his email and
that he woutd be using "KJ email tonight" rather than correcting the use of another
Deputy's emait, Lt. vanHoose reptled 'You can use KJs email or one of the gang
guy's. Benetatos, Liddetl, Shymkus, or Wiltiams."

'M/2712027, 0724hrs. Deputy Johns text to Lt. VanHoose "Too cotd for Stitto. 10 it
is" and Lt. VanHoose replied "What a bitch,'

'A5l1Q/7l022, 2041hrs, Deputy Johns asked Lt/ VanHoose if Kotasa catled in. Lt.
VanHoose reptied with 2 text messages the first reading "He catl,ed in" and the
second reading "His pussy hurts from today"

'45/12/2021, 1601hrs, in a group text with Deputies Rottar, Shymkus, combs, and
Wittiams Lt. Vanhoose text "We atso destroyed Cantwett today. I witl explain onty in
person."

'Starting 05lluza21 , in another group text with.Deputies combs, Rottar, Shymkus,

Benetatos, and Wittiams at 1808hrs Deputy Combs asks "so shoutd we take our
talents elsewhere? Like Florida" Lt. VanHoose reptied, "Not yet. This war is not
over. These motherfuckers don't get to win!"

-06/1812A21,2124hrs in the same group thread, Lt. VanHoose' s texted the above
grouP members 'no. Garcia is just an ldiot." (reference an email sent out in an

@ 21 af 26
 Office of Profossional Standards
lnternal Affalrs

effort to minimize overtime). At 2134hrs Deputy Benetatos repties "Fuck him and
his mother" referring to Chief Garcia with Lt. Vanhoose' s repty of "Yup." Continuing
with Deputy Shymkus' repty of three texts "Yup, was about to mention that" the
second, "B's statement as wett. Lo[" and the third "it's basicatty a very obvious
trap." Lt. VanHoose repties "l need to finish the task of burning the ptace down to
get Mendrick to implement the unit"

At 2159hrs, Deputy Shymkus text to the group "the part that irritates me the most
is how hetl bent Shoe is on wanting this to fait" to which Benetatos repties "Fuck
him and his famity especialty.'At 2138 Deputy Shymkus sent "l think Mendrick is
only seeing the manpower numbers. He needs to get rid of JUST and assign the new
hires where they are actualty needed."

On 46128/2021 at 0654hrs Lt. VanHoose sent the group "We're not tabeling anyone
as suspected in Offender Trak anymore because Toerpe was having a hissy fit."

'Starting 1A/2UZA20 in a thread of Deputy Johns and Lt. VanHoose. Deputy Johns
"HA so Kolasa put the hat on a pite of pizza boxes in the JUST office yesterday and
JUST thru it atl outl" Lt. vanHoose repties "Fucking Moron" with Deputy Johns
reptying "totyept"

-Q5l21l?:A2J at 0707hrs- Deputy Johns "Escorts refused to do trash despite being

catted over the radio" Lt. VanHoose replies "Reatty? Ok. l'm gonna start barking at
the top to hotd the supervisors accountable." Deputy Johns repties, "not sure who
did what" with Lt. VanHoose's repty of "Doesn't matter. Time to make life suck for
the supervisors.

'On09l1A/2021 a conversation was taking ptace regarding Union Grievances starting

at approximatety 0755hrs with at one point, 0827hrs Lt. VanHoose states "send them
a tampon" as a response.

Conversations vrith various deputies inctuding in group threads continue in this

manner. See the attached photocopies for further examptes.

ln regard to the text message conversation between Lt. VanHoose and Michaet
Beary, attached are 41 pages sampling the conversations had between them. Much
of the content of the conversations show efforts undermining and demeaning the
command staff in particutar, but atso other members of the Office.

The tisting of these text messages is just a sampte of the overatt total content
retrieved from Lt. VanHoose's Office issued cetl phone. A futt copy of the data
retrieved can be found on the thumb drive in the Office of Professlonat Standards,

The foltowing is a text message sent by Deputy Rottar to Lt. VanHoose and other
correction gang unit members.

/d.sh
\w 22 ot 26
 Of{ice of Professional Standarde
lnternal Affalrs

-07l14|ZAZ2 at 1518hrs Deputy Rottar sends to the group "l just had to exptain at
Oherrons that our office is fucked up at decided to cancet our orders white 3
different peopte were standing around tistening in to my tatk to the tady behind the
counter. One of those peopte was Garry McCarthy." This text is followed by a picture
of an articte referring to Garry McCarthy, former Superintendent of the Chicago
Police Department, as now being the Chief of the Wittow Springs Potice Department.
:

l This investigation has determlned there are violations of the following Office
Policies regarding the review of the text messages and emall:

:
I,t €hflrtsPher Yanllqo:q, #6C1

fifficiencv 321.6.7

a
- Negtect of duty.

.: unsatisfactory work performance inctuding but not timited to faiture,

a incompetence, inefficiency, or detay in performing and/or carrying out
: proper orders, work assignments, or the instructions of supervisors
without a reasonabte and bona fide excuse.

')

- Any act on- or off-duty that brings discredit to this Office.

C-onduct 321.6.9
:

.
:
:
- Any other on- or off-duty conduct which any member knows or
reasonabty shoutd know is unbecoming a member of this office, is
contrary to good order, efficiency or morale, or tends to refl,ect
': unfavorably upon this Office or its members
J
i
I
- Discourteous, disrespectful or discriminatory treatment of any
I member of the pubtic or any member of this Office or the County.
:' '
x

Remqnrlbttttv tq take actlon 321 .6. I 3

t

.
- Supervisor faiture to use authority to property discharge their
supervisory responsibitities

Dqpuly Sjeven RottFr_r_#0 5 3

:

-Conduct 32,1,6.9
:

Any other on- or off-duty conduct which any member knows or

reasonabty should know is unbecoming a member of this Office, is

6R\
t$h# 23 of26
 Offlce of Professlonal Standards
lnternal Affalrg

contrary to good order, efficiency or morate, or tends to reftect

unfavorabty upon this Office or its members

-Perfgrrlance 121.6.8

- Any act on- or off-duty that brings discredit to this Office.

ln regards to the text messages sent by the betow listed Deputies, white sent from
their personat devices to an 0ffice owned and issued device, it is recommended that
the content be reviewed by the Corrections Bureau Command Staff for any further
action for viotation of the fol,towing policies:

-Conduct 321.6,,9

Any other on- or off-duty conduct whlch any member knows or

reasonabty shoutd know is unbecoming a member of this Office, is
contrary to good order, efficiency or morate, or tends to reftect
unfavorabty upon this Office or its members

-Performance, 321 ,6.8

Any act on- or off-duty that brings discredit to this Office.

Deputy lgnatlos Benetatos #961

Deputy Stephen Shymkus Jr, #261
Deputy Jason Johns #055

White Civilian Contractor and Director of the JUST of DuPage programs is not an
employee of the Sheriff's Office, both his emaits and his text discussions with Lt.
VanHoose, particutarty as they pertain to undermining and demeaning Sheriff's
Office command staff and employees shoutd be reviewed, and any further action
taken as deemed appropriate.

Recon!,mendations:

1
Qprfr."U*iti Revision of the Corrections Gang Unit. This unit is a viable and
needed component within the Corrections Bureau, however there needs to
be direct daity oversight, poticy revision, and personnel change. lt is
recommended the unit be melded with the Ctassification Unit so that there
is cohesion in the jait classification process. lt is further recommended that
information on known and identified gang members be shared with the Gang
lntelligence unit in JoF for court, proceedings, etc. ln speaking with the Gang
unit in the JoF there is no information shared. The Unit Commander and
staff should setected to futfil.l this rote on a futt-time basis and that chain of

l's, 24 of 26
ru#
 Office of Profescional Standards
lnternal Affairs

command be established. The setection should include a Bureau wide posting

for the positions and a cotlaborative setection process.
Through the course of the investigation, it was learned that Lt. VanHoose and
the gang unit maintain an extensive database catted the "DuPage County
Correctional Center Facitity Tracker," However, the database has undefined
groups and information, gang member numbers do not match classifications
in Offendertrak, and the system does not appear to be in compliance with 28
CFR 23.20: Operating Principles. This system should be taken out of service
until comptiance and accurate data are in place.

OPS witt work with the Corrections Command Staff to ensure policy
comptiance and congruence within the Office.

2: Report Wrltfn$,i lmplementation of a format report writing system within the

Corrections Bureau. This is the targest Bureau in the Office and the onty
bureau that is not using FBR or WebRMS to comptete their reports. Therefore,
there is no audit trail, no etectronic fiting of the reports, and no accurate
accounting for the work that is being done. White there wiil. be a fiscat
impact, it |i/itt be minimal and the benefits to having the entire Office on the
same report writing system outweigh the costs. The approximate cost of
adding 210 users to the Hexagon/WebRlVlS system is 5210,000 per year. This
woutd atlow for safe and secure system and information management,

3; JUSJ of .0uFage: There ls no deniat of the benefits brought to the

Correctional Center from the programs and services offered by JUST of
DuPage. However, the behaviors and autonomy disptayed by current director
Michael Beary have created animosity and hostitity within the Bureau rank
and file as we[[ as the Corrections Command staff. The words and actions
have undermined the Command Staff of atl, three bureaus and demeaned
them. Thls is evidenced in the text messages and emails between Michaet
Beary and Lt. VanHoose where there is detiberate ptanning and action being
taken in an effort to replace existing command staff members, There are
even instances where Michaet Beary is recommending, if not demanding,
changing sworn staff members as he sees fit. lt is recommended that JUST
of DuPage, regardless of the director in ptace, be inserted into the
Corrections Chain of Command via one of the commanders currentty in ptace.
Given the facts and circumstances of this investigation, considerations may
be given to presenting the words and behaviors of Michaet Beary to the Board
of JUST of DuPage to deterrnine suitabil,ity for his continuation of his current
rote within the DuPage County Correctional Center.

End of report.

A 25 of 26
ruil#
 Offlce of Profsgsional Standards
lnternal Affalng

tur Date
Office of Professional Standards

#/4/zae z*-*
nson #401 Date
Director of Office of Professional Standards

Comments:

Sheriff of County

Comments:

ffi\ 26 of 26
Si#