State of Oregon Vs. Robert Alan Roeder

Thomas C. Bostwick
Attorney at Law
825 Liberty Street NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
Phone: 503-370-7745
e-mail: tbostwic@cyberis.net Fax: 503-370-7832

April 13, 2000

Lawrence J. Friedman
Legal Administrator
Legal Defense Fund
P.O. Box 2487
Stockton, California 95201—2487

Re: State of Oregon vs. Robert Alan Roeder
Marion County Circuit Court No. 99C51188

Dear Mr. Friedman:

In March 1999, Oregon State Trooper Robert Roeder became the subject of an investigation by the Oregon State Police regarding testimony he was to give at a traffic court hearing in Marion County, Oregon. The investigation involved an off-duty citation written in October 1998.

An Internal Affairs investigation had been ongoing involving Roeder pertaining to a number of personnel matters that had arisen with his patrol sergeant. Most of the complaints against him were insignificant. He was also under investigation for some claimed authorized military leave which may well have been the issue between Roeder and the Oregon State Police.

In early March 1999, Roeder’s supervisor learned of a traffic citation that was issued at Roeder’s instigation by another trooper during a freeway incident in October 1998. It was set for trial in late March 1999. Due to the failure of the on-duty trooper to follow a standard procedure in the processing of the citation, Roeder was “quizzed” by his patrol sergeant about the citation and the specific charges filed, as he had not been provided a copy of it by the on-duty trooper.

Due to a misunderstanding between Roeder and the on-duty trooper who filled out the citation, there was a dispute as to whether Roeder “paced” the offending driver leading to a speeding charge. The investigation revolved around what Roeder had told the on-duty trooper at the scene and what he believed he could truthfully testify to at the subsequent court hearing.

When the citation was brought to Roeder’s attention in March 1999, and he received a copy to review, he discussed the VBR charge with experienced troopers. Roeder advised his sergeant he could not proceed on the VBR charge because he believed he could not truthfully testify that he “paced” the driver pursuant to the definition of “pace” as set forth in the Oregon State Patrol Policy and Procedures Manual.

Roeder’s supervisors, for unknown reasons, determined that Roeder was being untruthful in his discussions with his sergeant about the citation. Internal Affairs, which had already been involved in conducting personnel investigations against Roeder, was asked to investigate his participation in the October 1998 citation and in essence tried to set up a situation wherein they could catch him in what they believed to be a false swearing situation.

A trial was held in front of a traffic court referee on March 31, 1999, wherein Roeder moved to dismiss the VBR citation based upon the misunderstanding and proceeded on the second charge of careless driving. Thereafter, at the trial, based upon the testimony of Roeder as well as the testimony of the offending motorist, the motorist was found guilty of that charge.

Roeder was subsequently interviewed by two detectives assigned to the Internal Affairs section of the State Police in the presence of two representatives of the Oregon State Police Officer’s Association. His statement clarified his beliefs as to what had occurred on October 1998, at the scene of the traffic stop, and his participation at the hearing in March 1999.

Nonetheless, the matter was referred to the Marion County District Attorney’s Office, who, in essence, took the point of view of the investigators and the matter became the subject of some on-going lengthy discussions between LDF panel attorney, Tom Bostwick, of Salem, and the District Attorney’s Office.

The deputy district attorney handling the case was insistent that Roeder resigns from the Oregon State Police in return for his agreement not to pursue criminal charges. Even though Bostwick supplied the deputy district attorney with information that supported Roeder’s position, the matter was set for Grand Jury, and as usually occurs, the Grand Jury returned an indictment.

Bostwick’s preparation with the aid of an investigator, G.E. Mallow, the assistance of Roeder and other members of the State Police, some of whom were affiliated with the Oregon Police Officer’s Association, led to the conclusion that the state was mischaracterizing the case. The day prior to trial, the case was reassigned to a judge, Bostwick believed was fair and had good common sense.

Therefore, he advised Roeder to waive his right to a jury trial and proceeded to try the case to the court. The testimony at trial went as expected. The court was convinced that Roeder acted professionally during the traffic stop on October 1998, and gave truthful testimony at the traffic hearing in March 1999.

Fortunately, the trial judge analyzed the case, in a manner similar to Bostwick, and gave a detailed letter opinion discussing the testimony and evidence and, ultimately, not only found Roeder not guilty, but innocent of all charges.

Sincerely,

Tom C. Bostwick
Attorney at Law