Of major concern is the description of the dead man carrying “an edged” object and “multiple weapons. He also reportedly had “dialogue” with officers. These statements are simply intended to muddy the water.

Not only do the coppers refuse to show the body cam video–if there are any–but the refuse to tell citizens if the dead man had a knife, sword, or putty knife. Failure to tell us assumes a cover up.

Winegar on camera said the dead man had items which “could be used as weapons. Things just don’t add up when coppers refuse to give straight info.

Media reports said the dead man had called the coppers himself and had engaged in dialogue before returning to his second floor apartment. Video appeared to show a building under construction. Sounded like a construction worker, but it will probably be many months before a laundered report is ever made public.

Guest Opinion by
KATIE FITE

Why I will urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to Reject the Upzone:

Tyranny. It’s top-down tyranny for Boise leaders to impose a Code re-write cutting the public’s voice out of development decisions that will profoundly alter our Boise neighborhoods.

Transparency will be lost. Developers will push projects on city staff with no public hearings, increasing potential for corruption. Projects will be set in stone, and the public’s only recourse will be expensive appeals. Crucial development decisions that could drive us out of our homes or apartments will be made behind closed doors at City Hall.


Teardowns will multiply. Existing affordable housing will be hauled away as trash to the landfill and replaced by new much larger structures with a bigger carbon pollution footprint. How not to get to net zero.

Tree canopy cover will be chopped down. The City of Trees will become the city of stumps, harsh concrete, and an unhealthy environment.

Temperatures will shoot up. The urban heat island effect will rise as green space vanishes.



Trauma. The social fabric of our community will be ripped apart as predatory speculators swoop in – turning Boise into a city of transitory renters, where regular folks can’t afford a home, and workers live in fear of rent skyrocketing and impending homelessness.


Terrorized. How renters will feel when landlords keep raising rents and they endlessly have to move to survive. How seniors will feel when they can no longer stay in their homes as tax assessments climb and gentrification engulfs them.

Taking away a good place to live from all those who helped build this community over the 60 years that the existing Code and various modifications have served us well. Taking from those who invested their life savings to buy a house in a pleasant place. Taking from neighborhood groups who spent thousands of collective hours crafting plans for livable neighborhoods.

Taxes will go through the roof. Seniors and workers will be forced to flee to somewhere more affordable.

Traffic.

Jammed! Streets are already clogged, as our weak public transportation system falls further and further behind. 

Transfer of wealth will take place. High density apartments and Airbnbs will be owned by Wall Street speculators and transnational corporations. Money will flow out of Boise. Civic values will suffer.

Trickle down housing has failed to produce affordability wherever it’s been tried. 

This complex, confusing 600+ page Code change and 300+ Comprehensive Plan revision will foster a Wild West growth mentality and chaotic development. Robber Baron style developers will chart our city’s future, converting Boise to a city of renters at the mercy of landlords.

Any large-scale Zoning Code change should come up from the people and be conducted through close study of, and consultation with, individual neighborhoods. It should not be imposed top down using expensive consultants who spoon fed boilerplate growth industry schemes, resisted in other cities, to a committee weighted with development interests hand-picked by the Mayor.

Any change of this magnitude must be put on the ballot for a public vote, giving citizens and media the time to dig into what these vast regulatory changes will do, and how they will impact our community. Instead, city leaders are trying to rush this through, and put distance between the Code controversy and the upcoming fall 2023 local elections.

Guest Opinion by
RANDALL FRANCH, Esq.

The Legislature passed into law one bill to criminalize gender-affirming medical care and another to criminalize any person involved in interstate travel of girls for abortion. Gov. Brad Little signed those bills, although he did veto a bill criminalizing librarians for not engaging in certain book-banning.

Only one member of the Boise School District Board of Trustees, Shiva Rajbhandari, expressed his frustration with the Governor’s actions. He said aloud what many of us thought. Those thoughts were expressed with profane language, but they addressed the extreme threat that this Legislature had made to the health, safety and lives of too many young people in Idaho. That Gov. Little, supposedly the moderate Republican, would sign those bills, says much about the power that right-wing Republicans, controlled by dark money forces that they do not even know exist, exert on Idaho politics. Idahoans are not nearly as hateful as their Legislature makes them out to be.

The School Board reacted badly to Mr. Rajbhandari’s social media post. It determined that Mr. Rajbhandari had violated its Code of Ethics, although it did not identify any specific part of that code in its press release, or how and why Mr. Rajbhandari’s statements, made on his personal social media, should be subject to any action by the Board of Trustees. Free speech may make people uncomfortable; sometimes it must make people uncomfortable to force them to open their eyes to behaviors that must be stopped.

That Board should have expressed its own outrage at legislation that potentially subjects its most vulnerable constituency to harm and deprives them of the medical care designed and intended to save their lives. It should not have engaged in the bullying of Mr. Rajbhandari, who is still 18 years old, facing off, unfortunately, against a Board of much older, more experienced adults. This Board of Trustees should be vehemently opposed to bullying, even by this Board of Trustees, against one of its own members. Bullying must be opposed whether on school grounds or in Board of Trustee Boardrooms.

The steps that Mr. Rajbhandari is taking are not, as insisted by the Board, an exercise in rebuilding trust. It is simply punishment for free speech that they did not like.

There is no question that Mr. Rajbhandari had a first amendment right to address these matters, even in harsh terms. It is less clear that the Board of Trustees had any right to sanction Mr. Rajbhandari at all for his protected speech. Neither the School Board nor any other body consisting of elected officials should have any right or power to sanction another member for their constitutionally protected speech. The voters who elected Mr. Rajbhandari are the sole arbiters of sanctions to be imposed. That is what elections are for.

The School Board would have done far better to issue a press release criticizing language it did not like but strongly identifying with and expressing unyielding support for the LGBTQ+ community, as Mr. Rajbhandari wholeheartedly did. That it missed this opportunity shows a complete failure to stand up for the constitutional rights that all Americans, even board members, have and the rights of Idaho’s children to the medical care they may need.

EDITOR NOTE–The GUARDIAN has also questioned the propriety of the school board meeting in a secret (executive) session to discuss the private activities of a fellow elected official.

This has the potential of being a new “revenue source” for Idaho cities if it is indeed legal. Police should love it because current enforcement is a very low priority. There is minimal chance for confrontation since there is no traffic stop and no contact with the driver by the city code enforcement agent.

Idaho law requires a real certified “peace officer” issue complaint and summons (ticket) for misdemeanors. We need a legal opinion on this since violations would be infractions.

Boise’s city councilors brought the grief upon themselves with a resolution making investigation of abortion cases a low priority. The Boise resolution in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court Roe-vs-Wade recinding decision was the only such action in Idaho.

Making a public statement declaring intent to not enforce a law certainly invites retaliation. Not wise to list what laws a city will enforce or ignore.

Check out the BOISE DEV report from the legislature.

The GUARDIAN has read all 19 affidavit pages detailing the probable cause for the arrest warrant of Bryan Kohberger, 28. With years of police-court reporting under the belt and sessions teaching coppers the ethical guidelines of crime reporting and release of information, we can offer nothing but admiration and praise for the conduct of this high profile case.

The degree of sophistication in handling the press gathered at Moscow was impressive. Not only the press conference style, but the use of a “media pool” allowing video and still images in the Latah County court room during his initial appearance averted a media frenzy. Pools are normally used in congressional and Presidential events. Typically a pool will grant access to single TV, radio, print, and wire services photographers and reporters. Media pools make all recordings and images available to all media.

While it may have seemed coy when police refused to answer reporter’s questions, we can now see they had a lot of info gathered from multiple agencies. Bottom line is there is little in our lives today that isn’t recorded or archived.

UPDATE 1/6/23–FBI had coppers stop suspect in Indiana to check for wounds on his hands, according to NY POST.
We offer a link below to the entire report which is fascinating reading. The affidavit was written by Brett Payne, a corporal with the Moscow Police Department (MPD) who has been with the department for about four years.

PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT

I’m hearing many people express concern regarding the mayor’s ineptness in the handling of daily operations.

From her confusing responses to the complaint nine police officers filed for workplace harassment to her differing statements on the Office of Police Accountability . The waters muddy even further with, a hastily created contract to investigate a retired captain who has sullied the reputations of so many fine officers.

What thought went into consideration of the many respectable and capable Idaho law firms who employ former United States Attorney’s office employees experienced in civil rights investigations… and arriving at a more affordable cost than what one Boise Council member described as “sticker shock”? Why wasn’t there time to expedite a process to seek bids from equally capable and locally based law firms? Perhaps if the mayor was more familiar with local resources she governs versus the powerbase that influences her from outside Idaho that decision would have been very different. We all see the need for expediency but not when it comes with a ready, fire, aim attitude!

Despite the early McCarthyism rhetoric of the mayor in initially casting dispersions on the men and women of a really good police department, I stand firm in my belief these detestable statements and writings were the lone beliefs of one troubled individual. From my perspective ready, aim and when sure of your target, fire would have been a more preferable approach.

All good investigations are focused on the “suspect”, when known, then develop accordingly. The “scope” should be focused on the Captain, his emails, correspondence and interactions with others then expand to his inner circle of friends and workplace colleagues; to those he supervised; then to the command staff he interacted with daily.

Because he was in a command position, I highly doubt that he has made any arrests within the last 7 years. His promotional peer evaluations, reviewed by department leaders as he progressed through the ranks of sergeant, lieutenant and captain won’t provide ANY credible leads or answer to the big question- why?. Most prudent people I have spoken to on this issue believe it’s better to use the precision of a rifle rather than a shotgun approach to this important inquiry. If there is such an urgency to seek immediate answers why wasn’t language added to the contract to request a preliminary report in 60 days?

I have recommended the department immediately initiate an ethics or conduct unbecoming a Boise Police Officer investigation based solely on his interviews and writings during the time he was still employed as a police officer but all the time writing under his now known pseudonym. Based on what I’ve seen and heard, a decertification recommendation to Idaho P.O.S.T is not only warranted but obligated. I’m not convinced City Hall feels the same.

There’s no doubt this investigation is warranted but not at the cost of a half million dollars. This is just one more example of statements and decisions from the Mayor’s office lacking sense. Citizens are losing confidence in local elected officials, particularly in regards to integrity and transparency, and it starts at the very top.

Masterson was the second longest serving chief in Boise history.

The overriding official reason for his termination seems to be that he was randomly reviewing copper body-cam videos “without authorization.” From the standpoint of the GUARDIAN we feel the guy was merely doing his job, but Mayor Lauren McLean is spinning his actions as being unwarranted “invasions into citizen privacy.” The mayor and five councilors interpret the city code as authorizing the OPA to monitor police records and video only in the wake of citizen complaints.

In an unusual move the MAYOR made the motion for dismissing Jara. The GUARDIAN doesn’t recall any mayor making a motion before the council. As we recall, the mayor can only vote to break a tie, so if the EXECUTIVE begins the LEGISLATIVE action with a motion it was possibly a violation of protocol(Roberts Rules of Order). Any legal beagles are welcome to comment.

Meanwhile Mclean is seeking half a million dollars in taxpayer cash to hire a consultant at $800 per hour to investigate whether or not there has been racist action in the Boise PD–despite no complaints filed alleging racist police action. This move comes in the wake of revelations that a retired BPD captain was affiliated with a white supremacy group in Tennessee. Deadline for the outside investigation report is AFTER the November 2023 election for mayor and council.

Media outlets, including the GUARDIAN, have public record requests pending for communications between the office of the mayor and the OPA. We have unconfirmed tips some of those records discouraged Jara from investigating an incident involving former chief Ryan Lee allegedly injuring a copper during a “restraining hold” demonstration. Mayor McLean subsequently asked Lee to resign following pressure from the police union and a news report by KTVB-TV news.

For more details, check out KTVB.COM, and BOISEDEV, websites.

The action was at the direction of Mayor LaurenMcLean, City Council President Elaine Clegg, City Council President Pro Tem Holli Woodings, and City Council Member Jimmy Hallyburton. There was not a quorum of the council present, but council members Lisa Sanchez, Luci Willits and Patrick Bageant, were informed of the move and none of them objected. That move circumvented Idaho’s open meeting law.

Jara had previously recommended that former Chief Ryan Lee be placed on administrative leave during an investigation of Lee’s conduct with another officer which allegedly resulted in a neck injury. Lee was subject of nine complaints from within the department. The surprise move to bench OPA Director Jara is the latest round of unsettling action involving Boise PD. In the city press release announcing Jara’s suspension, “ongoing concerns with professional judgment and lack of confidence in the actions of the office” were cited as reasons for the suspension.

Insiders speculate that Jara, who by city code has access to all police records and body cams, may have “bombshell information.”

Last week the office of City Attorney sent a memo to city staffers and coppers warning them to preserve any potential evidence in the investigation surrounding the revelations of racist allegations against retired captain Matt Bryngelson who had attended a white supremacy meeting and made racist remarks. Bryngelson was one of the nine who filed complaints against Lee.

The city memo was seen by some officers as an intimidation. They felt the memo was an attempt to gain access to officer’s private phone and computer records. The city said it was only to preserve evidence.

HERE IS THAT MEMO:

TO: Boise Police Department Employees
Jesus Jara, Director of Police Accountability Sarah Borden, Human Resources Director Alex Winkler, Chief Information Officer Lynda Lowry, ex officio City Clerk
FROM: Megan Larrondo, Deputy City Attorney
CC: Jayme Sullivan, City Attorney
Doug Tyler, Chief Admin Officer
Kimberly Smith, Public Safety Division Sr. Manager Alison Berriochoa, Paralegal
DATE: 11/23/2022
RE:
Investigation into Discriminatory Policing and Conduct at BPD
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ALERT: DOCUMENT RETENTION/LEGAL HOLD NOTICE

This Memorandum is to inform you about an internal investigation being conducted into Boise Police Department and your legal obligation to preserve documents and data related in any way to the Investigation. We must preserve all documents and data related to the Investigation, and you have been identified as a person who may possess relevant documents and/or data. You are responsible for complying with the instructions in this Memorandum promptly.
You are directed to preserve documents and data relating to the Investigation as provided in this Memorandum. These obligations will remain in effect until you receive a subsequent written notice that this Legal Hold has been updated, modified, or released. Failure to preserve documents and data relating to the Investigation may jeopardize the Investigation, expose the City to liability, and cause you to be subject to discipline. Accordingly, please contact the City Attorney’s Office if you have any questions or concerns about the obligation to preserve documents and information.

In addition, you should share this Memorandum with anyone in your department and/or the City you have reason to believe has or might have documents or data related to the Investigation. You have an obligation to ensure that all employees that you supervise adhere to the obligations in this Memorandum. Please notify the City Attorney’s Office if you identify any other persons who you reasonably believe may have documents or data relevant to the Investigation.
I. Background
The Investigation stems from racist statements made by former BPD Captain Bryngelson. The Investigation will investigate whether discriminatory policing and/or conduct has occurred at BPD. This includes investigating whether a culture of discrimination exists at BPD, whether any rights within the community have been violated by discriminatory policing practices, whether any rights within the department have been violated by discriminatory conduct, and whether Bryngelson or any other BPD employee used any BPD resources to advance racist beliefs.
You are obligated to preserve all documents and data that pertains to the Investigation generated between November 2017 to present.
II. Documents and Data
We ask that you take any steps necessary to ensure that you preserve and retain all documents (including duplicates and drafts) and data as they currently exist and going forward until further notice. The terms documents and data should be interpreted broadly and are not limited to hard copy documents. The terms include all records and information, including electronically stored information. They include audio recordings, video in any form, email, instant messages, word processing documents, spreadsheets, databases, calendars, telephone logs, internet usage files, and all other electronic information created, received, and/or maintained by the City on its computer systems. Sources include all hard copy and electronic files, computer hard drives, network drives, removable media (e.g., CDs and DVDs), laptops, iPhones or other smart phones, backup tapes, backup media, and anywhere else data is or could be stored. Note that this list is not exhaustive and is provided only by way of example. If you use a home computer or personal laptop to perform work on behalf of the City, you also must preserve any relevant information from that computer. If you use a personal email account to send work-related emails, you must preserve those emails. If you use a personal phone to send work-related text messages, you must preserve those text messages.
You must perform a diligent and reasonable search of all locations where potentially relevant information may be found. Failure to follow this directive may result in serious legal and other consequences for you as well as the City.

If you are unsure of the relevance of a document or category of documents, preserve it and contact the City Attorney’s Office for more information.
DO NOT DISCARD ANY DOCUMENTS (INCLUDING ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS) RELATING TO ANY OF THESE TOPICS. This request applies to documents currently in your possession and those you may create or receive after the date of this Memorandum. Your only obligation at this time is to identify and preserve relevant documents as they are kept in the ordinary course of business. You need not sort, summarize, or otherwise index these documents.

Do not mark up or edit any documents, and do not create any new documents in response to this Memorandum.
III. Special Considerations for the Preservation of Electronically Stored Information (ESI)
Electronically stored information (ESI) may be an important source of discovery and/or evidence in this matter. You must take every reasonable step to preserve relevant ESI until further notice.
The City must preserve all ESI related to the Investigation and suspend the deletion, overwriting, or any other possible destruction of relevant electronic documents and data. Automatic data-destruction protocols also must be suspended, and failure to do so could result in legal liability. These obligations apply to all relevant ESI, no matter when it was created. This is a continuing obligation to preserve all newly created ESI until further notice.
Typically, such ESI may be located in or on one or more of the following:
• Computer(s), meaning any programmable machine, including, but not limited to, network servers, desktops, laptops, home and office computers, mainframes, personal digital assistants, other handheld computing devices, and mobile phones;
• Hard drive(s) or hard disks, meaning the primary hardware that a computer uses to store information;
• Network(s), meaning a group of one or more computer systems connected to enable people to share information and equipment (e.g., local area network(s), wide area network(s), home area network(s), metropolitan area network(s), etc.);
• Email servers;
• Other storage device(s) or media, meaning any component that is used to store
data;
• Magnetic storage media, including but not limited to, hard drives, stick drives, Zip
drives, and floppy disks;
• Optical storage media, including but not limited to CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMs;
• Voicemail and/or voice messaging systems; and
• Archive(s) and/or backup tapes, meaning long-term storage area(s) for data and
hard copy documents.
IV. Suspension of Document Destruction Policies
Recipients of this Memorandum must suspend any routine business practice likely to alter or destroy the documents and data described herein until further notice. Such business practices may include, but are not limited to, shredding, disposal, or other destruction of documents; server backup tape rotation or overwriting; electronic data deletion;
The IT staff has been notified of these requirements and will assist Legal in locating and preserving documents necessary for use in the case. scheduled destruction of backup media; re-imaging of drives; drive hardware exchanges; sale, gift, or destruction of computer systems; disk defragmentation; and/or other disk maintenance routines. You should not resume these routine business practices until further written notice.
This direction supersedes any contrary instructions in the City’s policies and procedures (including records retention and destruction schedules established by state law, ordinance, or resolution) and any other guidelines or direction you may have received concerning the retention or destruction of records, documents, and other data.
This direction includes a duty to preserve documents and data maintained by departing employees.
V. Obligations of Third Parties
Our legal obligation to preserve information extends to any documents or data within the City’s control. If you are working with third-party vendors or other entities that may have documents or data covered by this Memorandum, please notify the City Attorney’s Office immediately so that we may determine whether to inform these third parties of our document preservation obligations.
VI. Confidentiality
In order to protect the City’s Attorney-Client privilege and rights of confidentiality, we request that you refrain from discussing or otherwise communicating about this matter with anyone (whether inside or outside the City) without first contacting the City Attorney’s Office.

Finally, you must acknowledge receipt of this Document Retention/Legal Hold Notice by signing the attached Certification and delivering it to Alison Berriochoa at the City Attorney’s Office (aberriochoa@cityofboise.org) confirming that you have received the Document Retention/Legal Hold Notice and will comply with it within 10 working days of receipt.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact the City Attorney’s Office.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and prompt attention to this matter.

Certification of Compliance with Document Retention/Legal Hold Notice
I have read the Document Retention/Legal Hold Notice Relating to the Investigation into Discriminatory Policing and Conduct at BPD and agree to comply with its terms. I certify that since receiving the Document Retention/Legal Hold Notice, I have not altered, discarded, or destroyed any responsive documents in either paper or electronic form and that I will abide by the terms of the Notice.
_____________________________________ Printed Name _____________________________________ Signature ______________________________________ Date
Page 5 of 5

Former Boise Police captain Matt Bryngelson touched off a firestorm when he became a poster child for a racist group based in Tennessee following his August retirement.

In the midst of contract negotiations with the police union, Mayor Lauren McLean made a statement condemning racist attitudes and launched an “independent investigation” into the Boise PD. She has apparently hired an outside investigator to handle the probe.

Here is what we know:
The revelation that Bryngelson had connections to the racist group took about everyone–especially members of Boise PD–by surprise. The GUARDIAN talked to former chiefs, union members, and others who all professed to have been “blindsided” and repulsed by what has been revealed.

There seems to be major concern that the mayor has ignored the recently created OFFICE OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY for the second time in recent months.

Previously she had been advised to place former Chief Ryan Lee on admin leave during an investigation into Lee’s use of force during a training incident that caused injury to an officer. She refused the advice, but later ended up terminating Lee. Bryngelson was one of the officers who had filed complaints against Lee.

The GUARDIAN can’t help but agree with BPD officers who note the alleged racist activity of Bryngelson should be of no concern to Boise officials since he is no longer a member of the department. From what we have seen, his public comments are despicable, but protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. In short, with no prior complaint and the fact he is not a public employee, there seems to be little cause to launch an investigation. Free speech, no matter how vile, is not a crime.