LovelandPolitics
| Loveland's Independent News Source |
| Loveland Council Politics Upset By Weld County DA Charges |
Loveland, July 15, 2015
On January 21, 2014 seven of Loveland's nine council members huddled in a closed session
meeting with Loveland Police Detective Brian Koopman to discuss the city's strategy in
continuing to defend him from a 2009 lawsuit alleging that Koopman falsified and omitted
information in an affidavit for a search warrant, fabricated evidence, falsified information in an
affidavit for an arrest warrant, and even gave false testimony at a preliminary hearing.
Prior to the closed door strategy meeting, newly elected Councilman Troy Krenning questioned
whether it was in the best interest of taxpayers to convolve the city's legal defense and interests
with those of the individual being accused of fraud. After several rounds with then city attorney
John Duval, other councilors also began questioning the city's strategy until Loveland City
Manager Bill Cahill weighed-in on the issue.
Cahill, a longtime Koopman defender, told Krenning and the other councilors,
"the line becomes distinct if the interest of our employee become adversarial to the interest of
the city, that has not occurred here."
Krenning asked how the city could spend $200,000 without ever trying to settle the matter
which rose out of an embarrassing episode for Loveland's Police Department when a resident
was falsely accused and arrested. Krenning commented,
"So we have gone since 2009 and spent over 200 plus thousand dollars and as of last week
there haven't been any settlement discussions.....I find that just a little bit alarming."
Following Krenning's comments, Councilwoman Joan Shaffer made the motion to bring the
discussion into closed session and seven of nine councilors voted in favor, Krenning voted no
while Councilman Ralph Trenary abstained but said he supported the closed session only was
too sick to participate. Six affirmative votes are required to close a city council meeting.
see video of the 1-21-2014 discussion and vote
The city's embarrassing sugar factory debacle arose out of a mistaken raid on the old Loveland
Sugar Factory where the owner's son was residing and running an excavation business.
Detective Koopman was convinced a methlab was being operated from the location along with
the distribution of narcotics. 9News did an extensive exposé of the raid and the subsequent
lawsuit by the victim of the raid - see below.
9 News Investigative Report
Officer Koopman Being Prosecuted for Lying In Murder Case
The Weld County District Attorney announced today charges have been filed against Loveland
Police Officer Brian Koopman for "attempting to influence a public servant" a class 4 felony.
The charges follow months of a special investigation by the Weld County DA regarding
testimony provided by Koopman in the murder case of Christina Anjoleen by Leroy Wallace.
LovelandPolitics has been informed that Koopman testified in court that he could see a suspect
on a surveillance video obtained by the police. According to our source who asked not to be
identified, Koopman failed to produce the surveillance video when asked. Our source also
claimed the recording was later discovered in Koopman's desk at the Loveland Police
Department by investigators who reviewed the tape and said his testimony was false.
The public servant the charges say he attempted to influence with alleged false testimony about
both the surveillance video and its location was apparently the judge in the murder case.
Wallace later pleaded to second-degree murder charges and was sentenced to 30 years in
prison. If Koopman is found guilty of providing false evidence in court, other citizens arrested by
Koopman and jailed on his testimony could seek to have their convictions overturned which
could be costly for the city if civil suits follow.
Koopman and the city's joint defense in the sugar factory incident depend on "prosecutorial
immunity" provided to law enforcement officials who are sued personally for performing their
official duties. However, that immunity does not extend to officers who violate rules of
professional conduct or fabricate evidence to obtain a search warrant since doing so is outside of
the scope of their assigned "official duties" normally.
However, by colluding with Koopman in a closed city council session the city may have
jeopardized its own ability to distance the interests of the city from Koopman's actions by
claiming he was a rogue employee not acting in an official capacity if providing false information
to a judge.
Weld County's prosecution of Koopman, if successful, may open up many other previous cases
where anyone arrested or convicted on evidence provided by Koopman can seek damages from
the City of Loveland which apparently not only approved of his actions but continued colluding
with him literally years after the sugar factory debacle to continue defaming the defendant.
Politics of Koopman Defense
The Loveland Reporter-Herald published a story last week regarding the 'politics' surrounding
both investigations (read article) over Koopman and the advocacy by Councilman Troy Krenning
to stop spending tax dollars on his defense. Loveland political insiders had written Krenning off
as "anti-police" for taking on the issue but if the Weld County charge sticks than the other
councilors who ignored Krenning's warning's may need to explain their actions.
Krenning critics like Loveland Mayor Cecil Gutierrez have implied Krenning's activities risk
giving Loveland a bad name and possibly hurting the morale of the police department.
Krenning told LovelandPolitics in response to Gutierrez,
“This is not a protest about the police but to protect the 99% of police who do their jobs
everyday without relying on false information."
“I don’t like getting form letters, I don’t like talking points. I was elected to be a watch dog
not Bill Cahill’s lapdog.”
An inference to Loveland Mayor Cecil Gutierrez questioning Krenning's probing of police
activities and whether such questions from a councilman towards the police department are
appropriate. Gutierrez, like most of his colleagues, not only supported unconditionally
Koopman's defense but allowed Koopman to help form the city's legal strategies in the closed
door meeting.
The Loveland Reporter-Herald published an attack letter from local attorney Kent Campbell
calling for Krenning to use a more "honorable approach to judging our peers" even suggesting
that Krenning's actions are beneath the dignity of the public office he holds.
Curiously, Campbell stated he defended Koopman in court but failed to identify himself as the
recipient of the now nearly one quarter of a million dollars spent by the City of Loveland
defending Koopman in court against the victim of the embarrassing sugar factory raid.
The obvious question remaining is whether the city would have been better advised to pay the
plaintiff in the civil action a settlement of less than $100,000 while investigating and maybe
disciplining Koopman for presenting arguably inconsistent if not outright false evidence in the
sugar factory case to obtain a mistaken arrest warrant.
On January 21, 2014 seven of Loveland's nine council members huddled in a closed session
meeting with Loveland Police Detective Brian Koopman to discuss the city's strategy in
continuing to defend him from a 2009 lawsuit alleging that Koopman falsified and omitted
information in an affidavit for a search warrant, fabricated evidence, falsified information in an
affidavit for an arrest warrant, and even gave false testimony at a preliminary hearing.
Prior to the closed door strategy meeting, newly elected Councilman Troy Krenning questioned
whether it was in the best interest of taxpayers to convolve the city's legal defense and interests
with those of the individual being accused of fraud. After several rounds with then city attorney
John Duval, other councilors also began questioning the city's strategy until Loveland City
Manager Bill Cahill weighed-in on the issue.
Cahill, a longtime Koopman defender, told Krenning and the other councilors,
"the line becomes distinct if the interest of our employee become adversarial to the interest of
the city, that has not occurred here."
Krenning asked how the city could spend $200,000 without ever trying to settle the matter
which rose out of an embarrassing episode for Loveland's Police Department when a resident
was falsely accused and arrested. Krenning commented,
"So we have gone since 2009 and spent over 200 plus thousand dollars and as of last week
there haven't been any settlement discussions.....I find that just a little bit alarming."
Following Krenning's comments, Councilwoman Joan Shaffer made the motion to bring the
discussion into closed session and seven of nine councilors voted in favor, Krenning voted no
while Councilman Ralph Trenary abstained but said he supported the closed session only was
too sick to participate. Six affirmative votes are required to close a city council meeting.
see video of the 1-21-2014 discussion and vote
The city's embarrassing sugar factory debacle arose out of a mistaken raid on the old Loveland
Sugar Factory where the owner's son was residing and running an excavation business.
Detective Koopman was convinced a methlab was being operated from the location along with
the distribution of narcotics. 9News did an extensive exposé of the raid and the subsequent
lawsuit by the victim of the raid - see below.
9 News Investigative Report
Officer Koopman Being Prosecuted for Lying In Murder Case
The Weld County District Attorney announced today charges have been filed against Loveland
Police Officer Brian Koopman for "attempting to influence a public servant" a class 4 felony.
The charges follow months of a special investigation by the Weld County DA regarding
testimony provided by Koopman in the murder case of Christina Anjoleen by Leroy Wallace.
LovelandPolitics has been informed that Koopman testified in court that he could see a suspect
on a surveillance video obtained by the police. According to our source who asked not to be
identified, Koopman failed to produce the surveillance video when asked. Our source also
claimed the recording was later discovered in Koopman's desk at the Loveland Police
Department by investigators who reviewed the tape and said his testimony was false.
The public servant the charges say he attempted to influence with alleged false testimony about
both the surveillance video and its location was apparently the judge in the murder case.
Wallace later pleaded to second-degree murder charges and was sentenced to 30 years in
prison. If Koopman is found guilty of providing false evidence in court, other citizens arrested by
Koopman and jailed on his testimony could seek to have their convictions overturned which
could be costly for the city if civil suits follow.
Koopman and the city's joint defense in the sugar factory incident depend on "prosecutorial
immunity" provided to law enforcement officials who are sued personally for performing their
official duties. However, that immunity does not extend to officers who violate rules of
professional conduct or fabricate evidence to obtain a search warrant since doing so is outside of
the scope of their assigned "official duties" normally.
However, by colluding with Koopman in a closed city council session the city may have
jeopardized its own ability to distance the interests of the city from Koopman's actions by
claiming he was a rogue employee not acting in an official capacity if providing false information
to a judge.
Weld County's prosecution of Koopman, if successful, may open up many other previous cases
where anyone arrested or convicted on evidence provided by Koopman can seek damages from
the City of Loveland which apparently not only approved of his actions but continued colluding
with him literally years after the sugar factory debacle to continue defaming the defendant.
Politics of Koopman Defense
The Loveland Reporter-Herald published a story last week regarding the 'politics' surrounding
both investigations (read article) over Koopman and the advocacy by Councilman Troy Krenning
to stop spending tax dollars on his defense. Loveland political insiders had written Krenning off
as "anti-police" for taking on the issue but if the Weld County charge sticks than the other
councilors who ignored Krenning's warning's may need to explain their actions.
Krenning critics like Loveland Mayor Cecil Gutierrez have implied Krenning's activities risk
giving Loveland a bad name and possibly hurting the morale of the police department.
Krenning told LovelandPolitics in response to Gutierrez,
“This is not a protest about the police but to protect the 99% of police who do their jobs
everyday without relying on false information."
“I don’t like getting form letters, I don’t like talking points. I was elected to be a watch dog
not Bill Cahill’s lapdog.”
An inference to Loveland Mayor Cecil Gutierrez questioning Krenning's probing of police
activities and whether such questions from a councilman towards the police department are
appropriate. Gutierrez, like most of his colleagues, not only supported unconditionally
Koopman's defense but allowed Koopman to help form the city's legal strategies in the closed
door meeting.
The Loveland Reporter-Herald published an attack letter from local attorney Kent Campbell
calling for Krenning to use a more "honorable approach to judging our peers" even suggesting
that Krenning's actions are beneath the dignity of the public office he holds.
Curiously, Campbell stated he defended Koopman in court but failed to identify himself as the
recipient of the now nearly one quarter of a million dollars spent by the City of Loveland
defending Koopman in court against the victim of the embarrassing sugar factory raid.
The obvious question remaining is whether the city would have been better advised to pay the
plaintiff in the civil action a settlement of less than $100,000 while investigating and maybe
disciplining Koopman for presenting arguably inconsistent if not outright false evidence in the
sugar factory case to obtain a mistaken arrest warrant.
| Loveland Police Detective Brian Koopman |
| On Jul 15, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Bill Cahill <Bill.Cahill@cityofloveland.org<mailto:Bill.Cahill@cityofloveland.org>> wrote: The Weld County special prosecutor has completed the investigation of Brian Koopman and informed us of the results. Their conclusion is to file a charge. Today, the Weld County District Attorney's Office filed one count of Attempt to Influence a Public Servant, a Class IV felony alleging a violation of Colorado Revised Statute 18-8-306 against Loveland Police Detective Brian Koopman. Detective Koopman has been placed on administrative leave from the Loveland Police Department, effective today. The Internal Affairs investigation of this matter, previously suspended during the investigation by the special prosecutor, has been re-initiated. Thank you. Bill William D. Cahill City Manager City of Loveland 500 East Third Street Loveland, CO 80537 v 970.962.2306 f 970.962.2900 ___________________________________________ From: Ward I - Troy Krenning Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 4:47 PM To: Bill Cahill Cc: City Council; Luke Hecker; Temp CCMAIL Subject: Re: Detective Koopman Charged and Placed on Administrative Leave Is this paid or unpaid leave? Troy Krenning Sent from my iPhone ____________________________________________ On Jul 15, 2015, at 5:17 PM, Bill Cahill <Bill.Cahill@cityofloveland.org<mailto:Bill.Cahill@cityofloveland.org>> wrote: Our policy is to place an employee on paid administrative leave until the disciplinary meeting takes place, in order to provide due process before depriving an employee of a financial interest in employment. That meeting is scheduled before the end of the week. I have asked City Attorney Tami Yellico to provide some additional information to you in a follow-up e-mail. Thank you. Bill William D. Cahill City Manager City of Loveland 500 East Third Street Loveland, CO 80537 v 970.962.2306 f 970.962.2900 |