READ ARTICLE AND VOTE, I want to know what every one thinks? on this.

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...D=2008808050301

August 5, 2008


Canton police chief accused in complaint

False allegation led to pedophile remark, cleaning worker says

Matthew Gruchow
mgruchow@argusleader.com

An employee with a Sioux Falls cleaning company claims he and a co-worker were called pedophiles during questioning by Canton's police chief based on a child's false accusations.

James Olson of the Intek cleaning company in Sioux Falls filed a complaint last week with the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation against Canton Police Chief Al Warnock.

Olson says Warnock and a Lincoln County Sheriff's deputy drew guns on him and a co-worker July 29 as the two worked to remove mold from a Canton home. He said Warnock called them pedophiles and other derogatory terms. The incident, Olson said, was instigated by a child's false claim that Olson and his co-worker tried to lure the child to their company van.

"The embarrassment is unreal," Olson, 30, said.

Warnock did not return calls or e-mails requesting comment. But Kyle Cwach, interim Canton city manager, confirmed by e-mail that his office received the complaint and that it was forwarded to the DCI. "To my knowledge, the review has not been completed," he said.

Sara Rabern of the state Attorney General's Office confirmed that a complaint had been filed with the DCI, but that the office could not release details while the complaint is under review.

Cwach said he would not comment on the incident until the DCI review is complete.

Lincoln County Sheriff Dennis Johnson said that his deputy was there as a backup officer only, and that the department's chief deputy spoke with Olson.

"He indicated to our (chief deputy) that he didn't have a problem with our guy," Johnson said.

The sheriff's deputy acted appropriately, he said. The DCI has not contacted the department regarding the incident, Johnson said.

Olson said he was taken outside at gunpoint where he and his co-worker were questioned about their contact with children in the area before eventually being left to work. Both men were wearing shirts with Intek emblems on them, and police were aware that they were working on the home, Olson said.

"My supervisor told me that a minute before they walked into the house they were on the phone with my supervisor," he said.

Intek management declined to comment.

Neither Olson or his partner were placed in handcuffs or arrested.

Olson said he was panicked, afraid that even the rumor of an accusation involving a child and the involvement of police would be enough to cost him his job and embarrass his family.

A child's complaint, whether it later is discovered to be a lie or not, must be treated as legitimate, said David Schrank, chairman of the criminal justice department at Colorado Technical University and a former Sioux Falls police officer.

"You're going to have to proceed with the reasonable assumption that the complaint is founded," he said. "The safety of the child comes first."

While not commenting on Olson's case specifically, Schrank said that the first few minutes are critical after receiving such a complaint from a child and a possible suspect. The situation is rife with unknowns and often little information, he said.

"It's sort of a no-win situation for law enforcement," Schrank said.

Reach reporter Matthew Gruchow at 331-2301.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

shat happens, but this does not seem excessive imo.

I dont think there is enough information to actually tell if it was or not but, so I threw it out to see what you guys thought any ways.

nice sig line so have you gotten it yet or are you still waiting on your socom?

Not nearly enough info to make a sound judgement. Sometimes rough language is appropriate in the field. What I find interesting is that the police Chief was involved, is this a really small jurisdiction?

I think that there is entirely too much foul language used by law enforcement today. a person is innocent until proven guilty. that is the law of this land. far too often people are being judged by police when that is not the job of police. judgment is called for to asses whether a crime has been committed of course. but actual guilt is the purview of the courts, not the police.



Shield rules state it is a forum for non LEOs to ask questions so here goes. If the guys were at work is it normal to draw your weapon just to ask them to go outside to ask a few questions? If a non LEO called someone names like pedophile and the like in a derogative manor would that not be assault? Is assault still verbal and battery physical? I can see how a simple question to a suspect such as "are you a pedophile? " could be twisted by the guy into a derogatory accusation.

I read what you guys write and I have to say that I respect those LEOS that post here based on what they say here.

I have deleted over half of this post because I got off topic, I am the fourth vote and the only vote that it was excessive. like the rest more info would have helped. 89 views and four votes... My vote may not be correct and it may not be popular but I had to take credit for it , wrong or right.

This kind of poll is what I was talking about in the other thread. This is a good thing and it gives me and others not on the force to understand a little more of what you face and feel when you go to work. I have no doubt that I give you ample info on my feelings from my side. I hope I have done so and will continue to do so with adequate respect. If I cross the line I welcome the input of those of you who serve and have served and protected me and mine. Like those who serve in the armed forces, let me thank you for your service. It is no less than a soldier for the cost can be as great.

Indy











RIP PF

There are too many variables to make a call or vote for me at this time. Situations are so fluid in the field....

You are always entitled to your thoughts and beliefs, I don't think anyone would ever begrudge you that. Hopefully we can all get some more information on this case in order to form an educated opinion on what exactly went down, and what exactly was said.

I can't think of a time where I've actually used foul language directed at an individual as a descriptor. I've dropped the occasional F-bomb here and there however, such as "Drop the knife, get on the f***ing ground," or, "OK, pal, why don't you stop bull****ing me," but nothing that would rise to an insult (although some people find others telling them what to do to be insulting).

Regarding your questions, again, I don't have enough information regarding the cicumstances to deem 'normal' for the situation. Going guns up in a situation is completely dependent on the totality of the circumstances you are in, and it will also vary on what officers are on the call and their own personal style and sense of officer safety. Some calls are no-brainers; responding to a call with a violent or possibly armed individual, unknown situations like building searches, etc.

Others...well, it depends.

Assault/battery definitions vary from jurisdictions, where I'm from, it's just assault, and name calling doesn't fit under that definition.