For Immediate Release
Media Contact: Bob Cooper
Date: December 6, 2004
Former Preston Police Chief Charged
(Boise) - The Office of Attorney General today filed a criminal complaint charging former Preston police chief Scott Shaw with seven felony crimes, Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said. Wasden said the charges conclude a six-month investigation initiated at the request of Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney Jay McKenzie.
The complaint charges Shaw with three counts of perjury, three counts of falsification of public records by an officer and one count of misuse of public money. The complaint was filed in the Magistrate Division of the Sixth District Court in Soda Springs. Magistrate Judge Ronald Hart issued a summons ordering Shaw to appear in court on December 15.
"These charges arose out of Mr. Shaw's conduct in the investigation of a criminal case in Franklin County in 2003," Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said. "The parties in the original case investigated by Mr. Shaw have been informed of the results of my office's investigation."
The allegations in the complaint are as follows:
Count 1 alleges that Shaw committed perjury on or about January 22, 2003, when he falsely testified under oath, in an application for a search warrant, that he and another officer of the Preston Police Department had been personally contacted by reliable confidential informants who gave first hand information that had been independently corroborated concerning drug manufacturing activity at in Preston, Idaho. The complaint alleges that Shaw knew this statement to be false when it was made.
Count 2 alleges that Shaw falsified a public record on or about February 3, 2003, by willfully submitting to the district court a false search warrant return for a search performed on a residence in Preston, Idaho.
Count 3 alleges that Shaw committed perjury on or about February 3, 2003, when he falsely testified under oath, in an application for a search warrant, that certain records of Tattles Bar and Grill were in a residence in Preston, Idaho, when, in fact, those records had previously been taken without lawful authority. The complaint alleges that Shaw knew this statement to be false when it was made.
Count 4 alleges that Shaw, on or about March 3, 2003, willfully falsified a police report by stating, in the report concerning the search of a residence in Preston, Idaho, that he had been contacted by a reliable confidential informant who gave first hand information concerning drug manufacturing activity at the residence and that Shaw falsely represented the substance of information received from another officer of the Preston Police Department relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine at the residence in Preston, Idaho.
Count 5 alleges that, on or about March 3, 2003, Shaw falsified a police report by stating that drugs and paraphernalia were found in a residence in Preston, Idaho, when, in fact, they were found in the purse of an individual who was at the residence but did not own the residence.
Count 6 alleges that, on or about January 29, 2003, Shaw appropriated public funds to his own use, without authority of law, by accepting a City of Preston check in the amount of $882.00 for tuition and expenses to attend the FBI Command College and thereafter caused the check to be deposited to the account of another. The complaint also alleges that Shaw neither attended nor attempted to attend the FBI training.
Count 7 alleges that Shaw, on or about July 20, 2004, committed perjury by falsely testifying under oath during a deposition that he kept the $882.00 cash, which had been paid to him to attend training at the FBI Command College, in his desk. The complaint alleges that Shaw knew this statement to be false when it was made.
"I owe it to the citizens of Idaho to seek justice in this matter," Wasden said. "This prosecution is essential to uphold the otherwise excellent work of police officers throughout the State of Idaho."
Wasden noted that a criminal complaint is only an allegation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
- End -