Tort Claim Notice Filed by Deputy Matthew Palmer
We can report that Deputy Matthew Palmer has filed a tort claim notice against the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office. A copy of the notice is linked below.
We wrote about Palmer’s unfortunate encounter with Lieutenant Joe DeLuca in our article “The Interrogation of Deputy Palmer” to which we have linked below and which for the most part accurately reflects what is claimed in Palmer’s tort claim notice.
Palmer’s complaint is intimately related to Sergeant Jay Minton’s formal complaint which he filed after Lieutenants DeLuca and Jayson Janes allegedly intimidated, bullied and retaliated against Minton.
We wrote about Minton’s complaint in our article “The Persecution of Sergeant Minton” to which we have linked below. We highly recommend you read it.
To understand exactly what happened to Deputy Palmer we turn to his tort claim notice and have reproduced the salient points below:
On or about November 4, 2023, there was an incident involving an Oregon State Police (“OSP”) Game Trooper. A young woman, local to the area and a nurse at a local hospital, shot an elk in a highly contested area. The incident was investigated by an OSP Game Trooper, and it was determined that no charges or citations were necessary.
The OSP Game Trooper then called DCSO dispatch and Palmer called the OSP Trooper after being dispatched. The OSP Game Trooper wanted to see if Palmer wanted to issue this young woman a citation for shooting the elk just inside of a no shooting zone.
Later that same day, several other hunters used pots and pans to push the elk herd back into a shooting zone to be hunted. An OSP Game Trooper was dispatched to this incident.
On information and belief, no citations were issued resulting from this incident either. DCSO Deputy Thomas J. Tyner (“Tyner”) was dispatched to this second incident and interacted with community members. These incidents upset some of the more affluent community members.
At the next local town hall, DCSO Lieutenant Joe V. DeLuca (“DeLuca”) was blindsided and confronted by some of the community members expressing their displeasure that no one was cited from either incident that took place on November 4, 2023.
DeLuca called DCSO Sergeant Joshua T. Barker (“Barker”). At this point, Barker was the Sergeant for south county. DeLuca told Barker to have Tyner and Palmer to call DeLuca at their earliest convenience.
Palmer told Tyner that Palmer would call DeLuca and handle this because Tyner was still a rookie and on probation.
Palmer called DeLuca and DeLuca informed Palmer on this call that the community was not happy with how the incidents were handled and that OSP was throwing Palmer under the bus.
At that point, Palmer informed DeLuca what took place. DeLuca then told Palmer that DeLuca was going to be meeting a community member in a few days and stated, “if the people want a cite, they get a cite.” Palmer does not agree with the sentiment of this statement. Palmer ended this call by telling DeLuca that if there is anything that Palmer can do to help, let Palmer know.
The following Monday, Palmer was contacted over the radio by DeLuca to call DeLuca immediately. Other DCSO members contacted Palmer to inquire if everything was alright or if he was in trouble. Palmer found this odd and believed that DeLuca was trying to make it seem that Palmer was in trouble because DeLuca has Palmer’s cell phone numbers and could have called him privately.
As requested, Palmer called DeLuca. During this call, DeLuca instructs Palmer to drive from Sisters to La Pine to meet with the community member. DeLuca made it clear to Palmer that Palmer would be meeting alone. Palmer felt he was being feed to the wolves. During this call, DeLuca again made it clear that “if the people want a cite, they will get one.”
After the call between DeLuca and Palmer ended, Palmer immediately called his supervisor, DCSO Sergeant Jeremiah D. Minton (“Minton”) and informed Minton of the situation and DeLuca’s instructions.
Minton told Palmer to standby, and Minton would let Palmer know what was going to happen next.
Palmer eventually received a call from DeLuca and Minton at separate times. It was conveyed to Palmer that Palmer would go to meet with the community member with DeLuca, not alone.
The call from DeLuca began with DeLuca yelling at Palmer, “do we have a f**king problem [redaction inserted].”
Palmer ultimately went down to meet with the community member with DeLuca and DCSO Deputy Jonathan A. Ebner (“Ebner”). During this meeting, Palmer, DeLuca, and Ebner were able to convince the community member that a citation was not the correct route in this situation because it was a legal hunting ground, but that if the community member wanted the area turned into a no shooting area, the community member would need to contact the state of Oregon.
Following this meeting, this community member wrote a very nice letter addressing how DCSO handled this situation. Palmer believed this would be the end of this incident.
On or about February 6, 2024, Palmer is informed by Minton that Minton received a poor evaluation and the many arguments between Minton, DeLuca, and DCSO Lieutenant Jayson P. Janes (“Janes”). Palmer told Minton that Palmer was alright if Minton wanted to use Palmer’s name in a complaint against DeLuca.
On information and belief, Palmer believes that an investigation into DeLuca took place regarding the handling of the elk incidents and the evaluation of Minton.
On or about April 24, 2024, Palmer was working in La Pine writing reports. The only people at the DCSO station in La Pine that day were Palmer, DeLuca and DCSO Sergeant Shawn Heierman (“Heierman”).
DeLuca and Heierman were sitting in the leadership office while Palmer was in the report writing area. Heierman was just interviewed by the investigators conducting the investigation into DeLuca and DeLuca and Heierman were discussing the investigation. In this discussion, Palmer heard Minton’s name mentioned.
Eventually, DeLuca called Palmer into the office. DeLuca and Heierman were sitting between Palmer and the door to the office. DeLuca starts the conversation stating that people are talking and brings up things that were misstated in the satire webpage DCSO Follies.
Palmer believes that DeLuca was fishing for answers and was trying to determine what Palmer would say during Palmer’s interview. Palmer also believes that DeLuca was trying to change Palmer’s perception of how the elk incident occurred. Palmer ultimately told DeLuca and Heierman that this is what Palmer would say if he was interviewed. Eventually, Palmer asked if he could leave.
After leaving, Palmer called the Deschutes County Sheriff Employee’s Association (“DCSEA” or “Union”) President and DCSO Deputy Jeffrey D. Pope (“Pope”) to inform Pope of the conversation that just took place.
Pope informed Palmer that DeLuca and Heierman did not act appropriately and asked Palmer if he wanted to file a formal complaint.
With everything going on in the DCSO, Palmer was afraid of retaliation and decided not to file a formal complaint at that time.
Palmer fears that if DCSO Lieutenant William W. Bailey (“Bailey”) wins the Sheriff election, DeLuca will become the new DCSO Patrol Captain.
Palmer did call two mentors of his, Minton and DCSO Sergeant Joshua D. Spano (“Spano”) to inform them of the incident with DeLuca and Heierman. On information and belief, both Minton and Spano brought this incident and concerns to DCSO Lieutenant Michael G. Sundberg (“Sundberg”).
On information and belief, Sundberg took this information and concerns to DCSO Sheriff L. Shane Nelson (“Nelson”). To date, Palmer does not believe anything has come from the situation. [We believe that to date Palmer has not been contacted of interviewed about this]
Palmer and his legal team are evaluating if:
- Palmer was exposed to unequal conditions or privileges, unduly scrutinizing Palmer, and ostracizing Palmer, as well as other potential violations under ORS 659A.
- There were violations of ORS 659A.199 and ORS 659A.203 by exposing Palmer to unequal conditions or privileges and unduly scrutinizing Palmer because Palmer made good faith and reasonable reports of conduct that is a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.
- There were violations of ORS 236.350 for conduct following the hunting incident and subsequent actions taken by Palmer, DeLuca, Heierman, Bailey, Nelson, etc.; and,
- There were violation of the United States Constitution and/or the Oregon Constitution in discriminating and/or retaliating against Palmer based on Palmer’s association with Minton and other DCSO members and union members, including union activity.
So this is now the SECOND tort claim noticed filed against the Sheriff’s Office leadership by a current employee in the matter of just a couple of months.
The first was filed by the highly respected Sergeant James McLaughlin and which we wrote about in “The Targeting of Sergeant James McLaughlin” and “Tort Claim Notice Filed by Sergeant McLaughlin”. Both linked below, and both of which we encourage you to read.
Then there is the ongoing $2.5 million federal lawsuit against Sheriff Shane Nelson filed by former Sheriff’s Office Captain Deron McMaster’s for Nelson’s allegedly appalling treatment of McMaster. We wrote a multi-part series about this case to which we have linked below.
As with Captain Deron McMaster and Sergeants McLaughlin and Minton, Deputy Palmer isalso a veteran — in his case of the US Army. Like McLaughlin and Minton, Palmer is also a member of the Sheriff’s Office SWAT team.
To our minds there is an uncomfortable pattern emerging.
Clearly where there is smoke there is fire, and as far as the Sheriff’s Office leadership is concerned, it is a raging inferno that no number of the hand held mini-fire extinguishers recently handed out by the agency can put out.
Should McLaughlin and Palmer’s tort claim notices proceed to formal lawsuits, and we see no reason why they would not, it would be the Deschutes County tax payer who is on the hook for potentially many millions of dollars in legal fees and financial penalties should the plaintiffs prevail — And given the strength of the complaints we feel quite strongly that they will do so.
This is obviously neither fair nor just.
It is pretty apparent, to us at least, that the Sheriff’s Office leaders involved in these cases acted with malfeasance and well outside of the scope of their official duties.
Thus we think it is incumbent upon the Deschutes County Board of Supervisors to at the appropriate time direct County Legal Counsel to conduct a full investigation into leaderships’ actions against the plaintiffs.
If this investigation determines leaderships’ actions giving rise to these cases rose to the level of malfeasance and/or were not acts or omissions committed within the scope of official duties then Deschutes County should absolutely refuse to indemnify and reject any demands for legal defense by the involved members of the Sheriff’s Office leadership.
Put plainly it is these men, and not the Deschutes County taxpayer, who should shoulder the costs of their own legal defense and any penalties levied against them by a court of law for their malfeasant actions against their own employees.
Follow us on Facebook
REFERENCES
