In Washington state, allegations have surfaced of police officers tampering with evidence, specifically altering police reports and affidavit to omit critical details. According to the Revised Code of Washington 98.72.150, a person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence if, having reason to believe that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted, they alter, destroy, or conceal any record or document to impair its availability. This serious accusation points to officers such as officer Dardert submitting documents to the court that differ significantly from their original narratives with highlighted discrepancies showing omissions of potential civil rights violations. When confronted, the response was dismissive, claiming these are separate documents meant to establish probable cause with minimal detail. However, this practice raises ethical concerns as altering narratives to exclude misconduct undermines the integrity of the justice system and erodess public trust in law enforcement. >> So, this door is locked and that door open. So, if you want to leave, that door's open there. >> How can I help you today? >> Um, well, see, we're going to get started here. Basically the the first thing or the main thing is uh that an officer here at uh your department um appears to have um tampered with evidence. Okay. Um a police report. So, um, real quick, I can show you. It might take a minute, but So, here is the result of a Freedom of Information request I made um on May 23rd, 2024. So, that's that's for you to to look at here. And I have it here where I'll show you >> what am I doing with this? So just um just hold on to that for a second here. Would you like me to? >> Yeah, you can take take this and support enter it in as a supporting document or you can just start um opening and following with me. I have I have the same stuff here. So I'm not going to read through all this right now. We only have a couple officers running. So I'm going to point it out, but this is just for your reference. Right. So this is officer Dackard, right? Okay. >> And this is uh his officer's narrative. Um, and there's some some differences between this one right here and this is still part of it right here and here [Music] and still part of the same thing. And then this one right here, right, that was submitted to the court. And so I've highlighted the differences. Okay. Whether it's um you know minor um >> you know >> these these are different documents. These are different documents. So we have a PC statement to take somebody to do any kind of charging or arrest or anything like that. We have PC statement. So we just type up whatever we need to establish probable cause. So that is sometimes copy and pasted from your report. That's what this is. >> Yeah. So the officer's narrative you write your report afterwards. So if you're doing charging you'll just establish your probable cause. So these are these two documents aren't identical. They're different documents. >> I know. I see that. >> They can be different. Like they're So whatever is in here can be 100% different than there. You could you could type this from scratch, but it's always quicker if you copy and paste and then okay, well this needs to be more detailed than this. All you have to do in here is establish probable cause where over here you're trying to put up as much detail as possible in all the other stuff. So that's why they're different. >> Okay. >> Does that make sense? Um it sort of sort of I I was under under the impression that you know they can make minor changes like you know corrections for times and dates and names and stuff like that and maybe um so so and and not not take not subtract things from like the narrative you know. >> Yeah. So so the report that there is a system put into place to make sure that what you're talking about doesn't happen. So we we have a whole we type up our report we'll go in and we have an approval status. So, we click, you know, we're done typing our report. We do approval. It goes to our sergeant or whoever the lead officer is at the end of the day. That sergeant reads through and says, "No, Bo, there's like a bunch of typos or like, you know, this this isn't right or accurate." >> I'm good. >> Um, so yeah, so that report, this is this is Sean. >> So, so that report goes through a process. The sergeant looks it over. Um, it's an approval status and then when the sergeant says, "Yep, good to It goes up front to records. Records looks it over and once it's completed, it's locked in. It can't be edited. Like we can't go in there and edit it. Um it'll show any kind of record or history of any kind of editing. But what you're talking about is these are two completely separate documents. So you have your affidavit of PC probable cause. So if there's any kind of charging going on, we type this up. This goes to the jail or to the prosecutor. >> This also goes Yeah. to the court. >> Yeah. To the court. So that is just all that has to have is the basics, the the bare bones. just just establishing probable cause for whatever the charge is. >> Okay. >> The report is more of like >> what if it's pretty inclusive except for minor adjustments to kind of change the narrative or to omit civil rights violations. >> Um the same thing once this is submitted into the court. It it's not changed. This document won't be changed after that. >> Right. No, but I'm saying that that this is >> submitted to the court. And then two another question. So this is this is the one right and then you can see here the the electronic signature and the date right here 228 2024 >> and then um on the same you know information request >> here here's a handwritten date of 519 2024 is that is that common or um >> um I mean essentially we have we have all these forms and stuff where you type it in there and then we have to fax it over to the jail. Um sometimes jail's like, "Hey, you forgot this and oh shoot, you know, right in there real quick or so this stuff is all entered in there, usually typed in and if you forget something, you can you can write it in there by hand." So you can also we have these forms in our office, we can do the whole thing by hand if we want to. It doesn't have to be typed. Um so there's I don't see any issue with handwritten data in there. >> So is that common? Is that is that something that happens a lot? Um, my guess would be if forgot to put the the date on there and then that way they said the jail probably said, "Hey, we need the date on there or something like that." So, >> was that fax? I'm not familiar. So, I don't >> This wasn't a jailable um thing or any or anything like that. >> Just it has to have the date on there. So, it's probably highlighted more of >> Well, and then too, it's it's strange cuz it says in here and written, you know, like whited out and then written over handwritten the 19th day of March 2024, Washington. And then it's handwritten right here. Uh 519 2024, you know, and that's that's May obviously. And then there's a you know hand signature from officer Packard there. So um and the fact that >> and these are all your documents too. So >> this is your show. >> The fact that the fact that all this highlighted stuff is different or subtracted and and omits you know the right here. And this is a big part. Sergeant Clifford made numerous attempts to contact David at the door to the residence. Although David was seen at the window to the residence and being summoned to the door, he ignored all efforts and did not respond. During one attempt at the door, David responded to the request to come out and talk with officers with something to the effect of, "You're not here to hand out candy bars and high fives." Dude, >> what is your question, sir? >> David remained non-ooperative during the efforts by law enforcement to contact him. then goes on to say, "Then Sergeant Clifford and I responded to Unit 11. Sergeant Clifford began to address David specifically with his first name, requested that he open the door, and then that's when I said, "No, thanks." R. >> So, so the way that this rolls out, right, is I don't know if you're familiar with with knock and talk procedure or like when you, you know, don't have a warrant and you want to knock on somebody's door to get some more information or investigate, right? Like, you know, there's a procedure or certain lines, right, that you have to to follow. like you >> can only, you know, really knock one session, right? And if you're ignored, >> are you talking about if we have a warrant into the house? >> No, without a warrant. If you're just trying to to knock and you know, hey, I got a call about some such and such, you know, was wondering um what you know, whatever, right? So, you can't just keep knocking and knocking knocking or or post up, right? You know, we we can if we're trying to get a hold of somebody, we're going to keep on trying to get a hold hold of them as long as we can, like whatever is reasonable. If it's a warrant or exit circumstances where we're going to kick the door, then we have to announce three times knock and of course police open door and of course police coming in and of course police after that. Yeah. Then there there's protocol for that with your own policies, right? Like in your policy manual, right? Beyond police reports, the conspiracy extends to court administrators who allegedly alter audio court records published on the court's website. RCW98.72.010 defines tampering with evidence as including knowingly presenting false or misleading information in an official proceeding. When evidence of these alterations was presented, the court's response was to remove all past records from public access and cancel their courting software subscription without explanation. This abrupt action suggests a deliberate cover up to shield officials from accountability. Such manipulation not only violates the public's right to transparent judicial processes, but also indicates a systemic effort to protect those in power, leaving citizens vulnerable to unchecked abuses under the color of law. Okay. Um, so, so what is the the policy then for warrantless, you know, knock and talk? >> Our policy books about that big. So, if you want that, you can ask what they're willing to >> argued and not familiar with it. I'm asking you what your policy is. You know, like are are you under the impression that you can just keep knocking and knocking knocking or go and look into windows and and stuff like that of a residence without uh probable cause or exigent circumstances or warrant? Entering somebody's house is one thing. Going around trying to see if they're home or get their attention to talk to them about active investigation is a different thing. So, >> um so are you are you talking about somebody are you talking about somebody entering your house or what are you asking? >> No, violating the curtilage. um repeated knocks um knocking attempts um coercion um to to open the door and come outside like threats of of arrest you know >> I think this is something you need to talk to your attorney about um >> no I'm I'm talking to you I'm asking you you know so you don't see a problem with with I haven't read your your complaint >> right here >> your complaint right now is saying that that piece of paper is different than the other piece of paper and I explained to you that those are two separate pieces of paper. They're not >> They're not altered, right? >> They're not altered documents. Yes, >> they are. This this cuz this didn't go to the court. >> So, what is your complaint? >> That he's he's altering his record, right? His affidavit to omit civil rights violations and misconduct. >> The affidav you too that the affidavit of PC is just establishing PC. It's the bare bones. You can put in as little as you possible. We can say, "I contacted this person this time. They did this. Probable cause was established. They were arrested or there's a probable cause for the arrest or for the crime." That's all it needs to be in there. Everything else is simply extra. >> Okay. You just make up, you can just change whatever. You know, you >> This is the report. The other one is the bare bones one. And you're saying that all the stuff in the report isn't in the affidavit. All the stuff in the report doesn't have to be in the affidavit. The affidavit is the barebones probable cause. They're two completely. This is this is the has and this is very um you know uh has everything to do with the probable cause. >> I mean there's if if we documented every single thing we did in every single call, we wouldn't be able to respond. I mean there's so so you put invious time to to to change it, right? Cuz you made the the minor typos, right, of like you know Spiegel in one, um Spideyel in the other. Um, you know, the uh >> So, I pulled anformational case. You said you wanted to pull a case. Um, so right now your complaint is that there's altered documents, correct? >> Yes. Civil rights violations. >> I admitted civil rights. What was that? >> I'm sorry. What? >> You're admitting civil rights. What? omitting um information on the the civil rights violations and police misconduct. >> Okay. Okay. And then altered documents docs >> as well as the, you know, all all five of these officers unfortunately participating in the unlawful conduct, you know, of the >> of the um, you know, incident on 227 2024. David 20 cascade. I got a case number, please. Can I get my case number, please? >> 1706. >> 1706. Receive. Thank you. Okay. So, right now your complaint today is >> You're welcome. >> There's altered documents. You said there's unlawful conduct. Um uh see what was that? The civil rights violations. >> Yes. By by Dylan Packard. >> Okay. Terren Clifford Joshua Schultton. A former public defender transitioning to a senior prosecutor in a neighboring county exemplifies a glaring conflict of interest, conspiring to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights. RCW42.2010 states, "Every public officer who shall knowingly violate their oath or duty is guilty of a misdemeanor." This individual's shift from defending the accused to prosecuting them raises questions about impartiality, especially when paired with allegations of evidence tampering and record manipulation. The failure to address this conflict allows officials to wield unchecked power, undermining the constitutional protections guaranteed to citizens. Such transitions, if not transparently managed, risk creating a justice system where loyalty to colleagues overshadows the duty to uphold justice. Tyler Hatcher and Dylar >> and then also um Officer Fl I called to report this to and u said that he wasn't going to do anything about it. >> So go ahead and put him on the list. Yeah, I mean, you can come in here and do this kind of thing as many times as you want and add as many people as you want to list, but what you need to do if you have an issue is take it to court. So, coming in here and and saying that you're not happy with the way stuff's documented, what are you going to accomplish by doing that? By talking to more officers, saying that you think this isn't right, this is something that goes to court is your responsibility to uphold these rights. >> That's why I'm here documenting. So, we document we document. I do another report saying that you said this, this, and this. So, XYZ, there's another piece of paperwork. So if you have an issue, then you'd address it. You get an attorney, you'd go to court. So coming in here and doing this, I don't I don't see your >> So you're not going to seek accountability um for for this kind of stuff. You're not going to, you know, uh >> right now I'm a secretary. I'm documenting what you're saying. It goes to the supervisor. The supervisor reviews it. >> And can I ask you like what what do you think about it? Like >> what I'm hearing, you already talked about it. The two documentation, one's the report and one's a probable cause affidavit. The one that gets them to the court is a probable cause affidavit. That's the one that the court reads and see what determines, hey, this person did this. >> Right. Exactly. And >> reports being more in depth all the steps that were taken during that incident and we include all that in the affidavit. Some of that stuff does not relate to what determin that will cause that person. Do you mind, you know, uh, going over like the the details of the omissions and and then maybe then you can give me an informed opinion on um, you know, the ethics of of that or >> this this is not the time and the place for that. Right now, we have three officers covering Alabama. You have two of them in the building right now. So, we're not going to go through all this. I'll document that you're upset, not happy with the way things were documented, and then you can take it to court. You can talk to an attorney. You have the documents. Well, I'm asking you basically if if you're going to take it, you know, to, you know, take it to the chief, take it, you know, to to the officers, take it to oversight, you know, um or is this just kind of going in the trash? >> So, why did you why did you ask to speak to 28? >> Because I I had an incident with him yesterday. Um and and I had a a good interaction with him. He seemed like a um um >> So, it's not it's not cuz he's the lowest number on the golden pole today. Um, most likely if I were in your issues, I'd be asking to talk to the chief. Um, >> the person the person in there with the chief and the chief ignores all my my emails and stuff. I got I got him saying that he he he, you know, reviewed the badge cam footage and everything and and and totally stands behind their actions, which um is is is sad because it's it's clearly so evident on the the badge cam of misconduct, you know. Does that make sense though that you you go as high up as you can? >> I got to go I got to go everywhere, man. Like I you know every officer I don't know how many of you are there. Like if you can give me the roster, I'll take this to everybody and be like, "Yo, look, you know, what do you think? Can you help? >> What are you accomplishing by talking to every single officer what you need to do is take it due diligence, man. I'm doing what you should be doing. You know, I'm I'm taking this. You know, >> my my job is not to review every other officer in the building's report." And >> I I get it. in a tough position to your bros, you know, and and I get it and stuff, but like, you know, it's this kind of [ __ ] can't >> can't continue, you know, and um >> I recommend you consult with your second thing. >> I'm not going to sit here and go through all that right now. So, I'm going to give you your card and your case number and you can talk to the chief or somebody else, but I'm not going to go through all that. Now, the evidence I have of tampering with court records with >> You can talk to somebody above me. I'm not going to go through this. We only have three call officers. I'm not going to go through this. >> Can Can you help me take this report? See, this evidence of of court record is report attorney. Sorry to miss you guys. You like your case number? Yeah. Yes, please. >> All right. Case number is >> Is there a detective to the that um or anybody else? Um >> you don't just talk to every single person in the building. You you talk you talk to >> get somebody to do something. >> You know the person that hires up there, a captain or a chief, and it sounds like you already talked to the chief. So if you're not happy with that, you talk to your attorney and you take it to court. Coming back here and asking to talk to every single person working on every single shift isn't going to solve anything or change anything. Does that make sense? Eventually it will. Yeah. If I talk to the right person. I was hoping that would be you. No. You have Ben for your case number. If you give me a moment. [Music] Okay. 25. Check that. 25- A 0 1 7 06. Okay. Your name's Yep. M O W R E R. It's all faded off there. Sorry. All right. Well, we're in. So you can't give me any um detective or any other between yourself and the and the chief cuz >> you know you can call dispatch and ask for somebody else and if they're available detectives don't I mean you can make appointments for detectives or make appointments for chief or captain or so on but the next step like I'm saying is you take it to court you get an attorney and say hey I've got an issue with this here's the evidence all that stuff they have legal knowledge that I don't have. They figure out what to do with it and you go from there but coming in and talking to every single officer is not not the appropriate action. um you know discuss with your supervisor to run by and you know and see what you found out what their advice is. >> Uh I'm pretty sure they're aware. I can go talk to them. Sorry. Are are you requesting a phone call or what are you asking for? >> Um I believe I just asked if you could ask run this by your supervisor and see if um >> Yeah. So So essentially our conversation I go in I'll type up a report briefing every single day. What I'm asking for is is anybody between you and the um the chief basically >> to come in and sit down and sit down and talk to you right now or >> Okay, I go ask. Most likely the answer is going to be no, but I will go ask. >> When confronted with evidence of misconduct, law enforcement and court officials deflected responsibility, refusing to investigate or escalate the issue. RCW9 8.80.10 10 declares, "A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another of a benefit, they knowingly commit an unauthorized act under color of law." Officers dismissed the complainant's concerns, suggesting they take it to court while ignoring their own role in upholding accountability. The chief's refusal to address badge cam footage showing misconduct further illustrates a systemic failure to enforce oversight. This pattern of denial and inaction perpetuates a culture where corrupt officials evade consequences, leaving citizens to fight for justice against a system designed to protect its own. Like and subscribe for more police cam stories. Watch the next recommended video. Click to watch now.