Minnesota Drug Recognition Evaluation Program Defendant Fillmore County Deputy Sheriff Michael Hadland Testifies that if a K9 Officer (a cop dog) Ingested Illicit Drugs, He would take it to a Veterinarian

A few days ago I posted the depositions of the Defendants in the Minnesota Drug Recognition Evaluator Program lawsuit.  In this program, the Plaintiffs were picked up in downtown Minneapolis, taken to a building near the Minneapolis - St. Paul Airport and given powerful marijuana that other police had stolen from kids in a park in Dakota County.

One of the important aspects of this case is the human aspect.  I have wondered where we are at in society where people could be treated this way and the perpetrators of the treatment could be so vigorously defended by the government.  Also, I have wondered if the perpetrators ever thought for a bit about their conduct.  If people are homeless, vulnerable, or have other issues, is it really right or fair to give them drugs and run tests on them?  If people are under the influence of illicit drugs, shouldn't they receive some care or medical attention?  Have the people in the government given any thought about how they would feel if they had a family member or loved one who was homeless, had mental health, or other medical issues and were picked up and given street drugs by the police and had tests run on them?  Given what I have seen so far, no remorse has been shown by anyone in the government for any of this conduct.  Actually, these people have asserted they are immune from any of these claims for this conduct.

Since 9/11, there has been a large increase in the number of law enforcement staff.  I am not citing any specific numbers, but I have worked in the criminal justice system in one way or another for over 15 years, so I am relying on my own observation.  This increase in officials has brought on what I can only describe as a near worship of K9 officers (cop dogs).  For example, Minnesota has a special law regarding the killing of a "public safety dog".  I have also noticed that many K9 officers win a lot of awards, such as this one in Roseville, Minnesota:

I love dogs and own one I bring to my office nearly every day, and I do not advocate for their mistreatment.  However, all of this seems pretty excessive.  As a taxpayer, I have some concern about all of these public resources being applied to awards for dogs.

It seems to me that the law enforcement defendants in the Drug Recognition Evaluator lawsuit likely cared much more about their dogs than they did my clients, the test subjects of the DRE training program.  My hunch about the feelings of law enforcement that K9 officers are more important and valuable than real people, for example, the test subjects in the DRE training program, was correct, as evidenced by the following exchange on pages 36 to 37 of the sworn deposition of Deputy Michael Hadland of the Fillmore County Sheriff's Department, who is also presently a Minnesota Drug Recognition Evaluator:

Q (by me): "Do you know, what's a canine officer?"

A (Hadland): "An officer that has a patrol dog."

Q (by me): "So if a patrol dog -- if you learned that a patrol dog had
 ingested illicit drugs, what procedures would you
implement?

A (Hadland): "I couldn't answer that. I'm not a veterinarian. I was
never trained in anything to deal with animals like that."

Q (by me): "Would you bring the dog to a veterinarian?"

A (Hadland): "Oh, you bet."

It is not disputed that there were no medical personnel present for the DRE training experiments.  Also, no medical attention was sought for the test subjects, who were given marijuana by the police.  However, if a K9 officer ingests marijuana, by all means, seek medical attention immediately.

Depositions of Drug Recognition Evaluator defendants, drugs used for testing taken from teenagers in a park, homeless targeted, scientific method not understood by certified DRE, official reports falsified

I have posted before on the blog about the civil lawsuit in which I represent Plaintiffs who were picked up by Minnesota law enforcement, driven near the airport, and given street drugs and told to use them.  Subsequently, various clinical tests were run on these Plaintiffs by law enforcement to provide training so these officers could become "Drug Recognition Evaluators."  Each officer needed to have 15 test subjects, and credit could be given for being a recorder for another officer doing the tests.  Myself and co-counsel Alan Milstein took the depositions of several of these defendants wherein they testified under oath.  I have now posted these depositions on my file server for anyone to review, in the public interest.

As an attorney who has done a lot of criminal defense work, in addition to bankruptcy and civil litigation, I have long maintained that the DRE program is nothing but preposterous unscientific charlatanism.  Please understand the opinion of one of these officers can get you arrested and jailed sight on scene.  However, do not take my word for it, here is testimony from one of the Drug Recognition Evaluators wandering the streets and arresting people presently,  Deputy Bryce Schuenke, formerly of the Dakota County Sheriff's Office and now with the Prior Lake Police Department, who holds a "Master of Science in Public Safety" from St.Cloud State University, from page 17 of his deposition:

Q (by me):  "Did you rely on, like, any learned treatises or scientific textbooks during the classroom portion of your training?"

A (Schuenke):  "I didn't use scientific textbooks, no."

Q (by me):  "There's no scientific textbooks used in the DRE training?"

A (Schuenke):  "We had manuals, but I don't know if they came from a scientific source or not."

Q (by me):  "What is an Institutional Review Board?"

A (Schuenke):  "I don't---I don't know."

Q (by me):  "What is a controlled experiment?"

A (Schuenke):  "I am familiar with the term, but wouldn't be able to explain it."

Q (by me):  "What is the scientific method?"

A (Schuenke):  "Again, same"

Q (by me):  "You don't know?"

A (Schuenke):  "I don't know."

I reiterate that this is a person who Minnesota Courts qualify to testify in Court about whether or not someone is under the influence of drugs.  His clinical opinion can land someone in jail very quickly and his testimony used to prove someone's intoxication.
 
These depositions are filled with wonderful information about the Minnesota Drug Recognition Evaluator Program.  There are many stories in these depositions that are very newsworthy.  One of the overarching themes of this program is that test subjects were given fake names, presumably to make sure their actual participation in this program could be concealed at a later date.  Official DRE logs are replete with fake names and falsified police reports (fascinating how Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman forgot about Minnesota Statute 609.505, falsely reporting crime, in his charging decision relating to the DRE program).  Officers testified under oath at these depositions that they put false names and false events in their official reports.

Another issue that the Plaintiffs were wondering about was the source of the drugs administered to the Plaintiff test subjects for these police experiments.  For such a scientific program that trains officers to put people in jail by waving their hands around and looking at them, one would think there would be very careful controls and dosages for the drugs (I am setting aside for the moment that it is a farce to administer drugs to people and then test to conclude that they are under the influence of drugs).  However, consistent with the entire Minnesota Drug Recognition Evaluator Program, the method the drugs were obtained is entirely unscientific, and there is no knowledge about what the drugs administered actually contain.  In his deposition testimony, while questioned by my co-counsel, Alan Milstein, Hutchinson Officer explained how the drugs administered to the Plaintiff test subjects were obtained:

From page 15 of deposition of Karl Willers:

Q (by Milstein):  "And there was at least one instance where you gave one of the people you evaluated Marijuana, correct"

A (Karl Willers):  "Yes"

Q (by Milstein):  "Was it only one instance?"

A (Karl Willers):  "No."

Q (by Milstein):  "How many instances were there?"

A (Karl Willers):  "Four or five."

Q (by Milstein):  "And where did you get Marijuana?"


There is a set of questioning from Karl Willers' deposition on pages 16 to 19  that his classmates, Mark Hanneman and Peter Zajac, had obtained the marijuana by taking it from teenagers who were smoking it in a park around Farmington.  Herein lies more of the rigorous science and testing behind the Minnesota Drug Recognition Evaluator program.

Here are the depositions I have posted, which are all of them:

Karl Willers, Hutchinson Police Department

Bryce Schuenke, Dakota County Sheriff's Office, now with Prior Lake Police Department

Daniel Lewis, Kanabec County Sheriff's Office

Kenneth Willers, DRE with Minnesota State Patrol

Michael Hadland, Fillmore County Sheriff's Office

Nicholas Jacobson, Olmsted County Sheriff's Office

Steve Schultz, Kanabec County Sheriff

Riccardo Munoz, Minnesota State Patrol

These depositions and their contents speak for themselves.  A reading of all of them together leads any reasonable mind to the conclusion that the DRE program is unscientific hocus pocus and its training methods constitute violations of civil rights. Further, the intentional targeting of Occupy Minnesota, the homeless, and other vulnerable populations is made clear in the testimony in these depositions.

I can be contacted at nathan.hansen@gmail.com