Sheriff's Office case becomes personal

One reader opined at a recent gathering: “I enjoy reading your column, but you lost me with that sheriff stuff.”

My columns on the issues plaguing Mineral County’s law enforcement and prosecution folks were the result of my curiosity as a former attorney. I understood what led to the court case regarding the release of so-called Brady information (information about law enforcement witnesses that might aid the defense) and the hiring of qualified deputies. It is ironic that the problems were born during the prior administrations of both the sheriff and county attorney offices.

I have had trouble shaking the case though. I worried that victims may not be receiving the justice they deserved because of the animosity. No doubt the court cases have cost the county money. But trying to decide whether it was a good thing or a bad thing, and, if so, who is at fault, would prove to be a fool’s errand.

It is undisputed that it all has become very personal. The county attorney’s office believes a concerted effort was undertaken to make it the “bad guy” in the public’s eye. Members of the sheriff’s department believe the county attorney’s office seeks some kind of revenge by attacking them personally. Superior native and defense attorney Lance Casper says in a motion before the court that he and his family have been attacked personally in public, and goes so far as to say he would withdraw his request for attorney’s fees if the county attorney and her deputy would resign.

I endeavored to meet both Sheriff Ryan Funke and County Attorney Deb Jackson. My plan was then to send each an email with one question: “Where do we go from here?” I wanted to focus on the future. I would publish their answers in full. Of course, they would have had no obligation to answer me.

I was able to have a good conversation with Funke. He appeared open about the issues facing the sheriff’s department. I was unable to visit Jackson when she had some time, and have not yet heard back on another date.

Now, the matter is back before the courts. Deputy Micah Allard has resurrected the lawsuit he originally filed in May 2023 when the commissioners refused to allow his rehiring by Funke. He had been terminated by the previous sheriff. Eventually, the commissioners relented and he was rehired. The case remained in abeyance until last month for reasons I do not know.

On April 24, Allard filed an amended complaint naming not only the county commissioners, but now Deb Jackson and Deputy Attorney Wally Congdon as defendants.

Allard claims Mineral County breached the settlement he reached with the county after his firing, when he says it refused to allow him, as agreed, to reapply once the former sheriff left office in January 2023. He also alleges the defendants defamed him by making false allegations regarding him “being insubordinate, untruthful, and a Brady cop.”

Further, the amended complaint alleges that the defendants interfered, without any legitimate purpose, with his right to earn a living in law enforcement. Allard also asserts the defendants “unilaterally concluded and stated Micah was a Brady cop, without affording him due process,” such as an administrative hearing within the county, or a declaration from a court. Finally, he alleges the county has not expunged his personnel record as required by the settlement agreement, and asks the court to order the expungement.

Allard does not specify an amount, which is not unusual. I was primarily a plaintiff’s attorney, though I also had many defense cases, and often stated the amount sought is that found fair and just by a jury.

Missoula attorney Jeffrey Smith, on behalf of the county Attorney’s Office, moved last Wednesday to have Judge Shane Vannatta removed from the case and another judge assigned. Montana law allows parties to substitute the judge without setting forth any reason.

As of Monday morning, neither the County Attorney or Commissioners have responded directly to the lawsuit.  They could either file denials in an answer, a motion to dismiss or a motion for a more definitive statement (a request that Plaintiffs provide more factual basis).

I will refrain from commenting on Allard’s case. Anyway, the only opinion that really matters now is that of a judge and/or the jury. And, ultimately, to you the voters.