What Should Have Happened
- Department should have a clear retention policy for electronic communications
- Communications about department matters should be preserved
- Litigation hold notices should have been issued when conflict became apparent
- Officers should not delete communications referenced in official reports
What Actually Happened
- No retention policy existed for text messages or phone calls
- Captain Pohl admitted deleting texts referenced in his internal report
- Deputy Duva confirmed deleting texts about the arrest
- No litigation hold was ever implemented; evidence is now unavailable
People Involved
Event Details
Event Summary
Beginning on November 6, 2022, multiple officers communicated about Marc King ’s arrest via text messages and phone calls. These communications were later deleted, and testimony revealed that the department had no retention policy for such communications.
Key Finding: No Retention Policy
When asked about policies governing deletion of communications:
QWhat’s your deletion policy?
AI don’t think we have a policy that covers deletion.
QAnd what’s the retention policy on that?
AWe don’t have a policy.
Captain Pohl’s Admission
Matthew Pohl admitted to regularly deleting communications:
I just like to periodically clean things up, both work e-mail, phones.
When asked about specific communications from November 2022:
Whatever text messages or phone calls that I’d referenced in my internal report, I no longer have those on my phone.
Deputy Duva’s Admission
Damon Duva also confirmed deleting text messages:
QDid you delete the texts?
AI’m sure I’ve deleted some, yeah.
Duva also mentioned switching phone carriers as a reason for lost messages:
I think I switched carriers on my phone and I’ve gotten rid of most of them.
Why This Matters
1. Evidence Preservation Failure
Communications about a potential conflict-of-interest situation involving the Sheriff’s brother were not preserved. This creates a significant gap in the evidentiary record.
2. Policy Vacuum
The absence of any retention policy means:
- Officers could delete communications without violating policy
- No accountability mechanism exists for preserving evidence
- Potential misconduct cannot be fully investigated
3. Pattern of Unavailability
Multiple officers independently deleted relevant communications:
- Captain Pohl deleted texts referenced in his internal report
- Deputy Duva deleted texts about the arrest
- No records remain of key conversations
Connection to Other Events
- Information Sharing to Goodrich: The communications that were later deleted
- Evidence Deleted 2022-2024: Broader pattern of evidence spoliation
- Policy Awareness vs Practice: Gap between stated policy and actual practice
Open Questions
- Were any text messages preserved by phone carriers?
- Has the department since adopted a retention policy?
- Were any litigation hold notices issued?
- What other communications may have been deleted?