Law enforcement issue has sparked internal disputes

This article is the second in a two-part investigative series, diving into the placement of a sheriff’s deputy on a Brady-Giglio list, and what it means for Henry County. The first part was published in the Aug. 13 edition of The Southeast Iowa Union.

MT. PLEASANT — On Dec. 5, Henry County Deputy Carlos Lopez met with several county officials, including Sheriff Rich McNamee, County Attorney Darin Stater, and a handful of assistants to the two department heads. A recording of that conversation was obtained by The Union.

Lopez said he agreed, in retrospect, that the false affidavits he filed which led to three arrests and charges of felony theft for members of the Wagler family in Wayland, “could have been articulated better.” He also conceded that his roughly 400-page report to prosecutors on the eventually dismissed case was insufficient to support criminal allegations.

But the deputy said he was caught off-guard by Stater’s decision to place him on the Brady-Giglio list — a formal document naming officers with credibility issues — months after the incident. Lopez argued that he was never intentionally deceptive, and should have been given a chance to correct the issues once they came to attorneys’ attention.

“This whole Brady-Giglio thing to me came out of the blue,” he said at the meeting. “I’ve talked with other law enforcement officers who have said your office has either found errors or mistakes in what they were doing and then you asked them to expand further on what they were meaning in it. And I’m saying that I was never given those opportunities in this affidavit because to me, this seems like a misunderstanding.”

Stater, however, said a redaction was off the table from the moment Lopez signed an affidavit under-oath.

“Prosecutors, magistrates, and judges do not perform an independent investigation into the veracity of the officer’s statements contained on search warrant applications or criminal complaints,” he wrote in an email to The Union. “They must rely on the officer’s oath when approving the form, content, and issuance thereof.

“Correcting the false statements would not erase the fact that Deputy Lopez had sworn to the truth of those statements. In this case, had the complaints been corrected as the sheriff suggests, they still would not have supported a Trial Information, which is the official charging document filed by my office.”

  Buy Photo

Lopez and McNamee have characterized the issue as a one-off mistake by an otherwise highly competent officer.

At the Dec. 5 meeting, the deputy argued the inaccuracies were obviously accidental, saying he had nothing to gain from submitting erroneous statements, and had no motive to lie about his findings.

“I feel like this is being twisted against me,” Lopez said. “It’s not like I intentionally tried to do anything wrong or anything like that at all. I listened to everybody that had talked to me. I understood the case as it was told to me by my senior deputies … and I think my past work has proven that, and my work since this whole thing has proven that.”

In general, Sheriff McNamee speaks highly of the officer, and said he had an impressive record to his name since his hire in 2020. A copy of Lopez’s disciplinary record from a personnel file viewed by The Union in June was entirely blank.

In his response to the first Brady-Giglio notice sent by Stater, McNamee recounted five times Lopez was commended for “great service,” and said the officer was “always striving for excellence and routinely works for improvement, not only for himself but for all of Henry County.”

The deputy first made major headlines in December of 2022, when news broke that he shot a woman in Mt. Pleasant while responding to a domestic abuse call, injuring her arm after a caller said she held a man at gunpoint. After a two-week investigation of the incident, the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office determined Lopez used a level of force that was “entirely justified,” though the injured woman continued to claim otherwise on social media.

In fall of 2023, Lopez began working as a part-time school resource officer for New London Community School District, still employed through the county. In conversations this summer, the school board expressed its desire to hire him full-time after he spent the year helping teach students about drug abuse, and training others in the building on active shooter procedures. He also coordinated an emergency response drill dubbed “Operation Prom,” started a newsletter for district families about student safety, and spearheaded efforts that brought 250 “Stop the Bleed“ kits to Henry County schools.

The school board voted 4-0, however, on Aug. 5, to seek a new school resource officer at the request of the district’s attorney, who recommended the change citing “unresolved issues with the current one.”

Lopez did not respond to requests for comments, but McNamee said the deputy did agree to release some of the records shared with The Union in response to public records requests.

Some worry about attorney’s accountability

A few Henry County residents disagree with the county attorney’s Brady-Giglio list practices, saying Stater’s decision had an outsized impact on police and their careers, with little to stop a prosecutor from abusing their discretion.

“I don’t feel any one man should have the power to inadvertently not read something correctly and make a decision to place somebody on this list,” Bob Byczek said in a public comment to the Henry County Board of Supervisors. “He is acting as judge, jury, and executioner.”

Stater said he objected to that characterization.

While the county attorney made the call to place and keep Lopez on the list, he consulted over a dozen officials — including representatives from the Iowa Attorney General’s Office, and other head county attorneys across the state — before finalizing the Brady-Giglio decision in April, according to at least 10 emails obtained by The Union showing the group’s scheduling efforts.

“We have discussions and ask questions of one another and share our experiences and expertise regarding issues at hand,” Stater said. “The final decision on how to act is mine.”

The process to place an officer on the list is spelled out in a handful of internal documents. According to one, labeled, “Henry County Brady-Giglio Policy and Procedures,” the criteria include incidents of untruthfulness and criminal convictions, as well as situations where the officer in question faces “negative allegations or opinions about (their) reputation or character,” pending investigations of their conduct, and any history of contradictions in court records.

All told, the document lists 16 examples that could land a county witness on the Brady-Giglio list, though the document says the criteria “includes but is not limited” to those scenarios.

According to the county’s rules, officers must receive written notice before being placed on the list and have the right to provide input to the Henry County Attorney’s Office before a determination is made. Once the decision is complete, the officer receives another written notice, and then has 10 days to request reconsideration in writing, a request that must be fulfilled by the attorney in the following 45 days.

Lobbyist for recent Brady-Giglio reform has ties to sheriff’s office

Iowa legislators passed a bill earlier this year — titled House File 2592 — which allowed officers put on a Brady-Giglio list to appeal that placement to a district court. Under that procedure, a judge would review the evidence in private, and potentially remove an officer from the list, depending on their findings. The law took effect July 1.

Skylar Limkemann, a private attorney at Smith Mills Law in Cedar Rapids, helped draft the legislation, according to several emails he sent to McNamee, Lopez and a handful of other officers around the state, which The Union acquired through a public records request.

In response to a request for comments, Limkemann said the bill would help ensure checks and balances, and keep Brady-Giglio decisions objective.

“I was a part of discussions where current and former county attorneys and prosecutors applauded allowing a judge to rule on these Brady/Giglio matters,” he wrote in an email. “Having a judge review and decide whether a county attorney got it right should be welcomed by all who value due process and reaching decisions on the merits rather than some improper purpose.”

Limkemann was also the lawyer McNamee sought to hire to dispute Stater’s Brady-Giglio decision, before the taxpayer dollars used to do so were returned to the county in July, when officials determined they were spent illegally.

The attorney is a former fire captain and EMT, specializing in municipal and employment law, according to his bio on Smith Mills’ website. He’s also worked as a lawyer for the Iowa Fraternal Order of Police lobbying group, and member of an attorney panel for the Iowa Communities Assurance Pool.

The Henry County Sheriff’s office has hired Limkemann at least five times before, according to McNamee. The attorney offered the county a “usual discounted hourly” rate, in one email, after the sheriff first emailed him requesting input on the Brady-Giglio matter.

Limkemann was also hired in preparation for potential lawsuits after Lopez’s role in the late December police shooting, according to county emails. The attorney has also informally weighed in with therapist recommendations for Henry County officers, and vouched for a training program hosted in Polk County.

Henry County has also previously hired Dave Schrock, another Smith Mills attorney, in cases involving a now-dismissed wrongful arrest suit, among others, an effort McNamee praised in an email to managers at the firm.

Tension has criminal justice departments at odds

The dispute over Deputy Carlos Lopez’s placement on the Henry County Brady-Giglio list has spawned agitation between the sheriff’s and attorney’s offices.

Sheriff McNamee said he believed the disconnect had spilled over to other branches of the county government, saying it may have driven a decision by the Board of Supervisors to reverse their earlier approval of funds for an additional deputy in June.

The sheriff’s office continues to claim the attorney’s is biased against Lopez.

McNamee has argued that because Stater made the decision to put Lopez on a Brady-Giglio list in the first place, the attorney had a “conflict of interest” when asked to reconsider. The sheriff has repeated that accusation in arguments about his since-scrapped plans to hire outside counsel, and conversations about public record issues.

“Whether Mr. Stater agrees or disagrees that there’s a conflict of interest, I certainly do,” McNamee told county supervisors. “This is why I came to you gentlemen in December to request outside counsel. And this is why I cannot rely on the legal opinion of Darin or his people on this matter or these (public record) matters.”

Stater maintains that the sheriff is mistaken. At a supervisor meeting in June, he said his actions to “enforce the law and exercise his ethical duties and protect the public does not create a conflict.”

McNamee and Limkemann have further claimed that a lawyer representing the Waglers — Danny Cornell, of Cornell Injury Law, in Mt. Pleasant — is a friend of Mr. Stater’s. The sheriff and private attorney have argued that Stater might share confidential information with Cornell if the county faces a lawsuit over the potentially wrongful arrest of the Waglers.

Limkemann has also suggested that Assistant County Attorney Blake Vierra may be biased against Lopez. In a letter to the Henry County Supervisors on May 29, Limkemann noted that Lopez is engaged to a former partner of Vierra’s.

Emails obtained by The Union suggest Limkemann may have heard that information from McNamee, who did not reply to an email asking why it was mentioned in a message he sent the private attorney in November.

  Buy Photo

In February, Limkemann mentioned an example of “a deputy dating the ex of an assistant county attorney” in a list of talking points shared with lobbyists supporting House File 2592, using it as an example of ways a Brady-Giglio decision could be biased.

He declined to comment on whether that was an intentional reference to Henry County, saying, “It may be the subject of action that is being taken against the county attorney and his assistant.”

Stater said he was frustrated by the line of rhetoric, calling implications about Vierra’s potential prejudice a “total fabrication,” and an ad hominem logical fallacy.

“Attorney Vierra holds no personal animosity toward Deputy Lopez,” Stater said. “Lopez’s placement on the list was done by me after consultation with multiple county attorneys and members of the Iowa Attorney General’s Office.”

In July, the sheriff’s office declared it would refuse to consult the county attorney about public records requests related to Lopez or the Brady-Giglio list, a policy that resulted in delayed responses for two such requests submitted by The Union in early June. The paper has applied for an advisory opinion on the delay’s legality from the Iowa Public Information Board, which said it expected to complete a draft opinion this month.

Some of the requested records were provided Aug. 7, when they were sent to The Union by Ellis Law Offices, a legal firm in Indianola. Attorney Ryan Ellis said Henry County “did not hire us,” but that his office was assisting McNamee “on matters we believe may be a conflict of interest for the county attorney,” blaming Stater for the 61-day delay. A formal two-page letter to The Union signed by McNamee Aug. 5 was included with the documents.

County Attorney Stater, meanwhile, said his office hoped to continue business as usual despite the string of disagreements.

“As legal counsel for Henry County and its officials, my office stands ready to advise and represent the Henry County Sheriff,” he said in a statement. “In fact, we are currently working on behalf of the sheriff on a number of recent issues.”

But privately, the department head has expressed his own frustrations with McNamee’s efforts to reverse the Brady-Giglio decision.

“I’m very disappointed and embarrassed by the state of affairs here in Henry County,” Stater wrote to Jessica Reynolds, executive director of the Iowa County Attorneys Association, shortly before announcing revelations about the sheriff’s illegal spending of county funds to hire Limkemann. “There is simply no reason for the appointment, the Henry County Sheriff just doesn’t like that I’ve placed Deputy Lopez on my Brady/Giglio list and he wants to fight it, even without legal grounds to do so.”

Lopez, Waglers, may take grievances to court

For the moment, Carlos Lopez remains on Henry County’s Brady-Giglio list.

Under federal law, that means government prosecutors must tell defense attorneys about the deputy’s potential credibility issues in any case he’s involved with, adding an asterisk to the officer’s testimony even if it “taints the whole case,” in Stater’s words.

It’s not clear whether Deputy Lopez plans to appeal his placement on the list to a district court, a move made possible July 1 with the implementation of HF 2592. In one email to Smith Mills Law Firm representatives on June 20, McNamee suggested Lopez planned to retain Limkemann’s services privately, but didn’t go into specifics.

If the deputy does seek an appeal, the proceedings will be confidential under the rules of the new state law. There’s little way to know if he does so unsuccessfully. If the officer is removed from the list, however, the change would be evident in the disappearance of his name from the document, which is a public record.

County prosecutors said they might still have to disclose Lopez’s error in future trials, however, even if he’s not officially listed on the formal roster of questionable witnesses. The federal precedents establishing Brady-Giglio lists as a practice also established an obligation for prosecutors to reveal personally held witness credibility concerns to defense attorneys.

“I’m treating it as if you’re on the list because I’m not taking a chance with my law license,” Assistant County Attorney Steve Giebelhausen said to Lopez at the Dec. 5 meeting. “There’s been prosecutors that get their law licenses taken away because they didn’t turn over something like this.”

Whether Lopez remains on the Brady-Giglio list or not, McNamee said he had no plans of discharging the officer over the mishandled Wagler case, even if it throws a wrench in other prosecution efforts.

“He’s going to stay in my employment regardless of how this comes out,” the sheriff said in an interview. “To be blunt, I feel like this is an error … if I agreed with the county attorney, (Lopez) would no longer work for me already. He would have lost his job last summer.”

Earlier this year, formerly accused members of the Wagler family filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Since 2023, the saw mill has stayed a civil case ordering compensation for an over $54,000 lumber delivery, which a client in Washington state claims the business failed to deliver in violation of a contract. Another civil suit regarding lumber delivery issues with the business started in Muscatine County in 2022, but was dismissed in September. The saw mill was also ordered to reimburse a plumbing business for unpaid costs in another money judgment earlier this year.

The family may be gearing up for their own day in court, however.

Mt. Pleasant Attorney Danny Cornell, who confirmed he represented the Waglers, said he sent the sheriff a public record request on May 7, seeking information about Lopez around two weeks after his placement on the Brady-Giglio list was finalized.

The move is a likely precursor to litigation, according to both Cornell and county officials, but as of Aug. 12, the lawyer said he was still waiting on the requested records.

“Our office has been retained to investigate and likely file a lawsuit in connection with the abuses by Deputy Lopez and his office,” Cornell said in a statement. “We are unable to provide further comment at this time.”

The New London Journal’s Gina Anderson also contributed to this report.

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com