Mr. William Sherman, Jr. gave notice of intent to file legal proceedings under C.R.S. Section 24-10-109 on July 17, 2007, for a claim of wrongful termination by Sheriff William Frangis. Mr. Sherman’s claim states he was “terminated for his refusal to participate in and sanction the secretive and inappropriate alleged activities carried out in the Office of the Sheriff and by Sheriff Frangis including, but not limited to:
(1) the improper handling in the chain of evidence in a crime, including the falsification of investigative reports and knowingly filing the same with command to evaluate and decided if further action need been performed, i.e., sending to the investigative bureau of the department.
(2) improper conduct and viewing of strip searched female prisoners;
(3) poaching from a vehicle;
(4) falsification of probable cause in order to stop and ultimately apprehend individuals and vehicles;
[list misnumbered in the original – no number 5]
(6) targeting and waiting outside establishments that sold liquor to patrons to issue alcohol related charges to both the individual and the establishment;
(7) drinking while on the job by sheriff personnel;
(8) falsification and improper issuance of the concealed gun permit program; and,
(9) illegal driving by sheriff personnel, including Sheriff Frangis;
(10) ineffective training procedures for new recruits in the field or for those transferring to other departments;
(11) lack of continuity in case follow-up;
(12) arbitrary and unilateral demotions and/or reassignments given in the field by personnel not authorized to do so;
(13) punitive action taken when telling a civilian the proper channels in which to file a grievance against an officer;
(14) inability to have a case properly investigated to determine the correct outcome (not just assuming facts not in evidence);
(15) the makings of derogatory, inflammatory and slanderous remarks against certain individuals in the department in an effort to use the derogatory information to determine or evaluate a pending criminal case;
[list misnumbered in the original – no number 16]
(17) withholding pertinent and important information concerning an ongoing criminal investigation by individuals in the higher ranks of command, i.e. Lt. Underwood and Sgt. Mattive;
(18) the sabotaging of a pending criminal case by having a rookie patrol deputy interview important and possible suspects in a criminal investigation;
(19) the continued undermining of pending criminal cases which were being investigated by Mr. Sherman;
(20) failure of field training officers (FTO) to properly monitor, advise, correct and/or sign off on any reports and/or investigations of any probationary investigators or field agents.
(21) a violation of Mr. Sherman’s civil rights as an Hispanic American.