A Shrug at Responsibility Turns Into Federal Indictments

PAUL GOYETTE
Founder and Managing Partner

JANELLE CRANDELL
Associate

GABRIELLA TURNBULL
Attorney
Goyette, Ruano & Thompson, Inc.

Most peace officers assume federal prosecutions start with high-profile events like a major civil rights scandal, a corruption case or an excessive force incident splashed across the news. But what if we told you that a recent multidefendant federal case began with a single officer’s shrug at responsibility during an overtime shift? Here is what happened and what every officer should learn from it.

How a Local Misstep Turned Federal

It started simply: An officer volunteered for an overtime shift to monitor a wiretap. For reasons of his own — whether laziness, indifference or something else entirely — he chose to interfere with the wiretap and then tried to cover up his tracks.

This could have been handled administratively, maybe even with department-level discipline. Instead, it was elevated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Once the FBI stepped in, the case took on a life of its own.

Our team defended one of the officers whose lives became entangled in this sprawling investigation. (He was not the one working on the wiretap matter.) He was indicted on six federal counts:

• Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241)
• Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 U.S.C. § 242) — four counts
• Falsification of Records (18 U.S.C. § 1519)

Six counts — based not on body camera footage, on-duty actions or citizen complaints — but primarily on private text messages between officers that were pulled out of context.

Our team successfully defended on most of the counts, but the jury returned guilty verdicts on two. Our client was ultimately sentenced to seven years in federal prison.

The Power of a Cellphone Warrant

In this case, once federal agents assumed control, the scope of the investigation broadened significantly. Rather than limiting their inquiry to the officer who allegedly interfered with the wiretap, the FBI pursued expansive search warrants targeting the personal cellphones of multiple officers — many of whom had no known connection to the wiretap issue.

In May 2021, the FBI initiated an investigation into that officer for alleged violations, including conspiracy to distribute narcotics and obstruction of justice. As part of this investigation, the FBI obtained search warrants for the officer’s iCloud account, linked to his personal phone number, as well as his Instagram account. After reviewing messages found in those accounts, the FBI then sought and obtained a search warrant for our client.

The crimes cited in that subsequent warrant included possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, wire fraud, honest services wire fraud and conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud. Importantly, none of these offenses were ultimately charged against our client in this case. Nonetheless, based on records obtained through that search, the government obtained yet another warrant, this time expanding the list of offenses under investigation to include obstruction of justice, destruction of records and bank fraud.

These were not narrowly tailored warrants. Instead, they allowed agents to sift through years of private digital communications without meaningful limitation. When something piqued their interest, they returned to court for further warrants — permitting even broader searches and more data seizures. What began as an inquiry into a wiretap interference turned into a sweeping fishing expedition, converting private conversations between officers into potential grounds for federal criminal charges.

Most troubling of all, our client was not charged in our case with any of the original offenses listed in the initial warrant. He was ultimately indicted for conspiracy against rights, four counts of deprivation of rights under color of law, and destruction, alteration and falsification of records in a federal investigation — charges that emerged only after the government’s investigation had significantly shifted focus.

If there is one thing every officer should take away from this, it is that your phone is a goldmine for investigators. A single warrant can unlock years of your personal and professional life, and in the federal system, once they have it, everything is fair game.

The Harsh Reality of Federal Sentencing

For officers accustomed to state sentencing frameworks, federal court is a different world.

Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, judges calculate an “offense level” and “criminal history score” to determine sentencing range — not to mention any enhancements that apply as well. While technically advisory, these guidelines are heavily influential, and mandatory minimums leave little room for leniency.

Unlike state court, federal criminal prosecutions expose defendants to far more severe consequences. One of the most significant differences is that there is no parole in the federal system. Incarcerated individuals are required to serve nearly the entirety of their sentence, with only limited opportunities to earn “good time” credits, typically amounting to no more than 15% of the imposed term. This means that a federal sentence is far more rigid and unforgiving than its state counterpart.

In our client’s case, the exposure under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines was up to 70 years in federal prison — a staggering figure, particularly when compared to the penalties for similar conduct in state court, where sentencing tends to be more flexible and parole eligibility often drastically reduces the time actually served. In many state systems, a person sentenced to seven years may be eligible for release in half that time, or even less, depending on their behavior, credit-earning and jurisdictional policies.

Even the ultimate sentence imposed — seven years in federal custody — would almost certainly have been significantly shorter had the case been prosecuted at the state level. This is not uncommon. Federal prosecutions often carry mandatory minimums, enhancements and complex guideline calculations that quickly inflate sentencing ranges, especially in cases involving multiple counts or allegations of conspiracy, fraud or civil rights violations.

Moreover, federal investigations and prosecutions are typically better resourced, more far-reaching and more aggressively pursued than state matters. The presence of multiple agencies, such as the FBI, DOJ or DEA, often results in a layered and methodical approach that can result in broad and long-term exposure for defendants. Once indicted in federal court, individuals face a system with fewer opportunities for diversion, deferred adjudication or alternative sentencing.

In short, while the same underlying conduct might be charged in either jurisdiction, the consequences of a federal prosecution are often exponentially more severe — both in terms of sentencing length and actual time served. This is a reality that blindsides many first-time offenders, especially peace officers who have never been on the receiving end of the justice system.

Lessons for Every Officer

This case was atypical in its origin, but many of the lessons are universal. Here is what we want every officer to take away from this case:

• Small issues can snowball. Even a seemingly minor decision, let alone it be someone else’s decision, can escalate into a sprawling federal investigation.
• Your digital footprint is never fully private. A single warrant can expose years of personal communications, and jokes, banter or venting that may feel harmless at the time, can be reframed in court.
• Understand the realities of the federal system. Sentencing is far harsher, parole does not exist and the rules of the game are different from what you may know in state court.
• Know your rights. If you are approached by investigators or served with a search warrant, seek legal counsel and contact LDF immediately.

About the Authors

Paul Goyette is the founder and managing partner of Goyette, Ruano & Thompson, Inc., and has served as chief legal counsel to more than 100 public safety and public-sector organizations. With over 30 years of experience representing law enforcement professionals, Mr. Goyette has tried more than 50 cases to jury verdict in federal and state courts, earning a reputation as a skilled trial advocate and trusted advisor. He continues to lead his firm in defending the rights of first responders and advancing the interests of public safety associations across California and beyond.

Janelle Crandell is an associate attorney with Goyette, Ruano & Thompson, Inc., representing public safety employees in labor matters, disciplinary proceedings and internal affairs investigations, as well as providing criminal defense representation. A former deputy district attorney with over 13 years at the Amador County District Attorney’s Office, Ms. Crandell has prosecuted a wide range of criminal cases and served as union president for the Amador County Deputy District Attorney Association. Licensed in both California and Texas, she continues to advocate for the rights and interests of law enforcement professionals and public-sector employees.

Gabriella Turnbull is an attorney at Goyette, Ruano & Thompson, Inc., dedicated to defending and advocating for first responders in criminal and civil matters in both state and federal courts.