Kansas Highway Patrol Trooper Clint Dwayne Epperly will face trial on Dec. 7 as a result of a preliminary hearing Friday morning in Lyon County District Court.
Epperly was charged in late June of one felony count of official misconduct and two counts of misdemeanor theft.
The focal point of the hearing was a global positioning system device that Epperly removed from a semi-tractor trailer unit that he had stopped on Dec. 17. Epperly, who has a KHP K-9 assistant, discovered approximately 550 pounds of marijuana in the semi.
He is accused of removing the GPS unit from the cab of the truck and giving it to a Lyon County Sheriff's Deputy to use in his patrol vehicle. Epperly also is accused of taking a tool box and tools to use in his patrol vehicle to disassemble boxes and other contraptions built to conceal drugs from view.
Substitute Judge Philip L. Sieve of Kansas City presided over the hearing on Friday. A total of five witnesses were called to the stand during two and a half hours of testimony.
Sieve said it was the court's obligation, at this stage of the proceedings, to determine whether there was probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime, which he contrasted to the obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
"Certainly, as I look at the plain language of the charging statute, there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime," Sieve said. "... That's a long way from being beyond reasonable doubt. I believe it's my responsibility to find that there was probable cause ..."
Details, including testimony, from the hearing will be published in The Gazette on Saturday.
hottopics (anonymous) says...
550 pounds of illegal drugs off the streets...one GPS and tools bring a great K9 Unit and officer to a complete hault. Most bad cops would take the weed and find a way to profit from it. The only thing I can say in his defense is that he used what he took to do his job better, not profit from it.
August 14, 2009 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
The law will still view it as theft because the GPS unit was not his to give away, and the tools were not his to use, no matter how he planned to use them.
What if I "take" a sewing machine from a shop downtown and use it for nothing else but making and giving away quilts for cancer-stricken children?
August 14, 2009 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
I hope they move his trial elsewhere, out of his old patrol area. There's been too much speculation and publicity here.
August 14, 2009 at 3 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
food4thought (anonymous) says...
He is an officer of the law. You do not steal for any reason you are to set an example and make others follow the law. He is a crook like any other if he did this. You can not justify it by saying he was making his job easier by taking these things. How about if the paperman steals a car that is newer and has air conditioning because he has an old hunk of junk that breaks down and he can not make his route, this makes his job better and easier does it make it right? No!!! Use your common sense people, some of you that comment, I am surprised you can make it up in the morning and dress yourselves, you have no common sense.....
August 14, 2009 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nascar (anonymous) says...
Seriously??? He could have taken thousands of dollars and tons of drugs and this is what he gets in trouble for?? Nice Emporia!
August 14, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sayitsnotso (anonymous) says...
Does anyone know if he has taken drugs or money? Is a doper going to report drugs or drug money taken? Not saying he's done it, but it certainly makes one ponder the question. If it wasn't for law enforcement stepping up and policing their own then this may have gone undetected. Let's see how all this plays out, but it sure doesn't make law enforcment look good.
August 14, 2009 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
What I am hearing is that if your good at your job or contribute to society you can "take" things and it is OK. Use your sense, if he was caught this time, what about the possibility that this has been going on for awhile? How do you know? You can't, if he did this he cannot be trusted. This is one of the areas where there is no shades of gray, either he is a criminal or he isn't. The mantra that good cops are above the law is a false notion, and those that think this to be true need a reality check.
August 14, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hottopics (anonymous) says...
I thought my comment might be taken the wrong way. I was just looking at it from all angles. No, he should not have done it but maybe there could have been a different way to approach it and correct it. But innocent until proven guilty is the law.
August 14, 2009 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of government power and the police state. A person that values his privileges above his principles soon loses both.
August 14, 2009 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Smiley (anonymous) says...
Does anyone know what happens to confiscated items?? Well think about it; all these items are utilized against the criminals. Some level of law enforcement is using it in performing his/her job. Or it is sold, and law enforcement utilizes the money. Do you think that the state is going to buy a Ford Mustang for a patrol car? No. But they will implement the use of one the drug runners could buy for them. We are talking about the transfer of a GPS from one law enforcement agency to another. DUHHHH! Quit looking for fire, where there isn't any smoke. Another note: if we didn't have drug USERS we wouldn't have any situation like this would we. The GPS would still be with the owner and he wouldn't have had 550#s marijuana in his vehicle.
August 15, 2009 at 12:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stryker1_25 (anonymous) says...
I personally wouldn't have done what he did, but I'm not going to crucify the guy for it. He seems to have had good intentions. I would rather see those items put to good use instead of sit and collect dust in some warehouse. Do they really need those items for evidence? Or is 550 lbs of cannibus enough?
I say let the citizens of Kansas vote on It. Should we prosecute this state trooper? My vote is no solely based on what I've read in the article. Give him a slap on the wrist and put him back to work.
August 15, 2009 at 1:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
"Some level of law enforcement is using it in performing his/her job." This may be true of confiscated items, but that is only after they have been turned in and catalogued. The trooper is only one cog in the wheel; he shouldn't have taken it upon himself to distribute those items.
August 15, 2009 at 7:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
This ought to stir the pot, so to speak:
WHAT ABOUT THE PERSON DRIVING THE SEMI?
Have charges been filed and the perp been to court yet?
Or were charges in that case just dropped after consficating the property?
Law enforcement agencies have been dealing with drug dealers more and more. It's a big fat cash cow for them. Take the money, property etc, and cut a deal with the perp which allows them back on the street to continue their "business".
Another Question;
If pot was legalized, regulated and taxed, would any of this happened?
Something to think about.
August 15, 2009 at 7:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SFIns (anonymous) says...
What about the deputy that took the GPS. Do we have two criminals or one criminal and one deputy that entrapped the trooper. I wouldn't put it past a deputy to ask the trooper for the GPS just so he could take the credit of catching a crooked trooper.
August 15, 2009 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
courtreporter (anonymous) says...
If some of you would have went to the hearing alot of your questions would be answered. The gazette says they will print testimony from the hearing, lets hope its all the testimoy. What I heard was the prosecutor for the perps case said the GPS was never needed as evidence and he has never used on in the past to prosecute anybody. The LT from the highway patrol said the stuff inside seized vehicles either ends up in the trash or recycled for troopers use. The tools from seized vehicles are compiled on a bench in Topeka for troopers to use.
The defense attorney asked every law enforcement officer (deputy, trooper and KBI agent) that testified if they have ever needed or used a GPS as evidence? Out of the 40+ years of law enforcement experience that testified, nobody has ever used a GPS as evidence. It was mentioned several times that the information "could have" been used or "may have" been useful to further investigations. That didn't sound very convincing to me. The KBI agent was not convincing and he appeared to be extremely nervious and contradictied himself a few times about how he investigated this case. The defense brought up a very convincing piece of information that the DEA trooper who needed the GPS "so bad" took a piture of it on the night of the stop and failed to gather it as evidence when he saw it and photographed it.
As far as I'm concerned, the State did not have a very convincing case and all of the witess called seem to benifit trooper Epperly to some degree. His defense attorney did an excellent job illistrating the whole picture and yes, I think the deputy has also done things wrong, but if you look at the initiation of this case, the deputy's supervision only though the trooper was wrong, not their employee. One must wonder why?
Before you pass judgement or convict this trooper, you need to hear the evidence because it was pretty convincing to me that he did not commit a crime. The State only needed to show probable cause which is merely 51%. If you really think about it, flipping a coin is 50%.
August 15, 2009 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jcook66801 (anonymous) says...
What court reporter, with any amount of professional ethics, would comment on a case in the court system? The previous post sounds suspicious to me.
August 15, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
knute (anonymous) says...
This might be sorted out -in court- by establishing what is a matter of procedure for a particular agency e.g. what might be standard KHP procedure may differ from that of the KBI which may differ from that of the Sheriff's Department which may differ from etc etc. The deputy may have correctly acted on -his- agency's protocol not realizing the trooper was acting on -his- agency's protocol. If the trooper acted on standard KHP procedure, I'd guess this will be a wash. I don't have the whole story so I'll wait for the court to decide.
August 15, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthefacts (anonymous) says...
There will be lots of speculation until the trial. All the information related to the investigation by whoever did it will come out at that point. Then the judge and jury can decide. Be careful since there are anonymous postings here. You never know who might be writing in defense of or against someone or something. A potential jury member could be reading. I would agree that hopefully they will change the venue.
August 15, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hottopics (anonymous) says...
I totally agree that we need to wait and hear all the evidence. I still think this could have been handle in house in the department. Someone may have a ax to grind and took it to a higher level.
August 15, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
courtreporter (anonymous) says...
The gazette just threw out alot more testimony than I did to a much larger audiance. Again, I was there as a friend to the trooper and to his credit he surely didn't commit any crime. So I hope you will call the gazette and tell them about this "ethical" responsibility to mot divulge the evidence until trial. There was alot more said than was reported, so if you are going to throw out an opinion or judgement at least goto the hearing so your opinion can be an educated one.
August 15, 2009 at 3:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthefacts (anonymous) says...
Since you disclosed you were there as a "friend to the trooper" we can assume you share some bias in this matter? Cops have a higher standard to hold to. They all know that when they start. You have to be above reproach..period.
Let the system play out. We will soon know the specifics and like I said before. The judge and jury can decide.
August 15, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Smiley (anonymous) says...
So what about the officer that asked for the GPS and also had it in his posession?? Where is the higher standard in that. Where are the charges against him?? Why on earth would you thinks that a cop needs to be held to higher standard than "you". Makes me wonder!!!
August 16, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
courtreporter (anonymous) says...
Good point, smiley. According to the testimony after the depuy brought it to the attention of the UNDERSHERIFF he installed, tested and used the GPS. Isn't possession 9/10 the law? What about possession of stolen property? I didn't hear anything that cleared the deputy of wrong doing.
August 16, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jcook66801 (anonymous) says...
Never, EVER base an opinion of guilt on evidence presented at a preliminary hearing. The hearing is held so that the prosecution can prove that the suspect COULD have committed the crime. The defense seldom presents any of its evidence.
Never, EVER judge guilt based on the information reported in the media. Do to limited space/time it can only present the highlights (a subjective matter) of the court appearance.
Never, EVER second guess the jury's verdict unless you were there, from start to finish, at the trial. And that includes deliberations.
Remember: until he pleads guilty or the jury finds him guilty, he is innocent. Everything printed here is nothing but speculation and opinion.
I don't know Epperly. I have no bias for or against him. I do know from personal experience that he is going through hell right now. Until a verdict is reached, lets cut him a little slack.
August 16, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
courtreporter (anonymous) says...
I agree whole heartedly with you. I do know for a fact what he is going through and feel there wasn't alot of support for him on here and the opinions where based on feelings and not the facts of the case.
August 16, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jcook66801 (anonymous) says...
As much as I love an open and frank discussion, I'm beginning to feel like the Gazette ought to shut down these forums when the discussion are nothing more than attacks on individuals.
August 16, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jenblock04 (anonymous) says...
There is no need to censor The Gazette. As intelligent readers/citizens we must separate what appears to be assumptions of facts from judgements and opinions. Assumption of fact: the officer took the GPS and tools and voluntarily shared them with other officers. In doing so, the officer violated search and seizure procedural requirements.
Opinion/Judgements: The officer(s)' acts were morally wrong. The officer(s) took the GPS with good intentions (to improve his anti-drug operations). The officer's seizure of huge amount of drugs minimizes the harm he(the officer) caused by taking the GPS/tools in violation of procedural requirements. The case should have been handled internally, that is, administratively (administrave law) as opposed to criminally (criminal law). The use of administrative sanctions could have produced a better result: keeping an effective drug-interdiction officer, plus inflicting some form of punishment.
In my view, administrative punishment (assumming that the officer(s) have no prior administrative violations and sanctions) could have produced a better outcome: deterrence and punishment.
August 16, 2009 at 9:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jmb232 (anonymous) says...
This officer made a grave error in judgement by removing an item from the vehicle and not logging it into evidence or listing it on a vehicle inventory form. No matter what his intentions he should have followed proper protocol by logging this item into a property room. If later a judge or district attorney allowed it to be released to a law enforcement agency to help fight against drugs that would have been acceptable. It would seem that he didn't intend to steal it or he may have kept it for himself. The Deputy should have never accepted the device without proper authorization.
August 17, 2009 at 5:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
courtreporter (anonymous) says...
Jmb, he was not secretely removing the GPS he was transfering it to another law enforcment officer so that agency could do the forfeiture. Perfectly within the letter of the law. From what I understand the Sheriff is driving a pretty nice vehicle that was stopped by this trooper. The KHP LT said the stuff inside these seized vehicles is just bagged up and could be put in the trash or redistributed to law enforcement. The stuff inside the vehicles is not all specifically listed or logged into an evidence room like you see on TV. Your questions would have been answered at the hearing. I wouldn't say he made a grave error in judgement. Whoever investigated and decided to prosecute this made a grave error in judgement.
August 17, 2009 at 8:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
courtreporter (anonymous) says...
YY4U, again if you would Have went to the hearing you would know that trooper Epperly did go through the GPS and determined that nothing was of evidentiary value. So in your words it sounds like you think trooper Epperly is a good investigator. You would have also heard that the bad guy was cooperating so they had all that information from the bad guy or they wouldn't have done the sting operation to bring the bad guys to them. Again, another judgement by someone who doesn't have any facts. Go to the next hearig before you cast your verdict. It would be nice if the gazette just published all the testimony rather than a very small portion that doesn't give the whole story.
August 17, 2009 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
d23_66801 (anonymous) says...
courtreporter good job these guys have no clue but have all the answers !
August 19, 2009 at 12:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jenblock04 (anonymous) says...
Scenario: I teach a class and I found a laptop left behind by a student. I turned on the laptop to find the name of the rightful owner and return it. In the process of searching for the owner's information, I found child pornography material saved on the harddrive. I don't care about pornography and computers, so I give it to a colleague who is a computer teacher and who can use it to improve his teaching. Did I do the right thing despite the fact that the owner may have been using it for internet child pornography? Please give me some advise!
August 19, 2009 at 8:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Smiley (anonymous) says...
jenblock04; OK here we go again, first go to the trial!! Listen to what is presented. There were cell phones. A lap top computer, GPS, and maps. Agent in charge of crime scene shows up, he photographs everything. He and Trooper Epperly process crime scene. Evidence was taken from cell phones. Agent and Trooper Epperly checked computer for evidence. None useful. Crime scene turned over. Trooper Epperly checked GPS for evidence, agent seemed to overlook. None useful. GPS turned over to other law enforcement officer. Other law enforcement officer to catalog for inventory. The computer is in vehicle until day it is sold; GPS in inventory with other law enforcement agency. Trooper Epperly being prosecuted for felony official misconduct. And you should turn computer over to law enforcement if there is child pornography; what a strange/stupid comparison.
August 19, 2009 at 10:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )