police handcuffs 070323a0062 200w

Detective Chris Shermer of the Missoula Police Department has been exposed as corrupt

police handcuffs 070323a0062 200w

Chris Shermer was disciplined by the Missoula Police Department in Missoula, Montana in October 2010 for violations of MPD policies, but this was not disclosed to Bill Windsor or others who Chris Shermer wronged.  

This wasn’t a simple policy violation.  This was corruption, plain and simple.  A dirty cop.  AND, a violation that federal law REQUIRED the prosecuting attorney’s office to disclose to people with cases in which Chris Shermer was an investigator… 

The State of Montana violated due process rights in withholding information pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).  Specifically, the State and its agency, the Missoula Police Department, withheld critical impeachment information on this investigator.  Many Montana convictions should now be overturned because this information has come to light.

Detective Chris Shermer of the Missoula Police Department has been exposed as corrupt by the Missoula County Attorney’s Office.  The proof of this is provided below.

I knew he was corrupt, but I was not aware of what happened in 2010, and federal law that requires disclosure of what happened was not followed.  I was told nothing.

I personally know that Chris Shermer is corrupt.  I have plenty of evidence.

Here is a letter that my Montana attorney obtained.  It was not provided to him or me by Missoula County or the State of Montana:

“July 6, 2016
Chief Mike Brady
Missoula City Police Department
RE: Detective Chris Shermer

Dear Chief Brady,

When we met last week, I learned that Detective Shermer had been disciplined by the Missoula Police Department [MPD] in October 2010 for violations of MPD policies. Specifically, after an internal investigation conducted by the MPD, Detective Shermer was found in violation of two Articles of the Canon of Ethics, namely Article 3 and 4, by failing to educate himself of the relevant criminal statutes and by using illegal means of pursuing a criminal offender. According to MPD’s report, the conduct that led to these :findings was as follows:

Detective Shermer investigated a criminal defendant for internet related child pornography offenses. The investigation resulted in the issuance of an arrest warrant for that defendant. That defendant lived in Billings and while Detective Shermer was in Billings for an unrelated case, he began to search for that defendant to serve the arrest warrant.

Detective Shermer posed as that defendant in a telephone call to the Billings Job Service.  After providing verifying information, Detective Shermer obtained the user name and password for the defendant’s job service account and his last known address.

When the address did not verify through the 911 dispatch center, Detective Shermer used the user name and password to access the defendant’s job service account and verify he wrote it down correctly. Once he confirmed he had written the address correctly he logged out, realizing the information was of no value. He later arrested the defendant by other means.

This letter is to notify you that based on the findings in the internal investigation, Detective Shenner must be placed on a Giglio/Brady list, which will negatively impact his ability to perform his duties as a witness in our cases. Any conduct or statement that affects an officer’s reputation for honesty and credibility has a direct relation to that officer’s ability-or inability to testify at trial.

History of Giglio

In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

In Giglio v. United States, the Supreme Court extended the obligation to share exculpatory information with the defendant to include information concerning the credibility of government witnesses. “when the reliability of a given witness may be determinative of guilt or innocence,” the Court wrote, “nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within this general rule.” Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).

In United States v. Agurs, the Supreme Court expanded the rule further by recognizing a due process duty to disclose exculpatory information even in the absence of a specific request for it.  United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). The duty to disclose includes impeachment evidence. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).

Finally, the Court’s decision in Kyles v. Whitley imposed upon the prosecutor an affirmative “duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf, including the police,” and a resulting duty to disclose that evidence to the defense. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).

A “Giglio-impaired” agent is one against whom there is potential impeachment evidence that would render the agent’s testimony of marginal value in a case, which means that a case that depends primarily on the testimony of a Giglio-impaired witness is at risk. Cameron v. Department of Justice, 100 M.S.P.R. 477,482 n. 1 (2005), review dismissed, 165 F. App’x 856 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Montana Law

Evidence of a witness’s untruthfulness is relevant and admissible under the Montana Rules of Evidence. Mont. R. Evid. 401, 608(b), 61 l(b)(l). Additionally, the State is required to provide materials which can be used to impeach a witness pursuant to our discovery statute, Mont. Code Ann. ¬ß 46-15-322 (l)(e), in every case where the officer might testify.

Impeachment information may include but is not strictly limited to: (a) specific instances of conduct of a witness for the purpose of attacking the witness’ credibility or character for truthfulness; (b) evidence in the form of opinion or reputation as to a witness’s character for truthfulness; ( c) prior inconsistent statements; and ( d) information that may be used to suggest that a witness is biased. It also includes any finding of misconduct that reflects upon the truthfulness or possible bias of the employee, including a finding oflack of candor during an administrative inquiry.

Detective Shermer Findings

A review of the internal investigation reveals instances of untruthfulness and deception which will require disclosure by the prosecution every time he is called as a witness. Additionally, our office will now have to go back and notify every defendant who has been convicted in a case investigated by Detective Shermer since October, 2010 of these findings. This will inevitably lead to post-conviction litigation in many of the cases.

Public Policy

A police officer’s job is a position of trust and the public has a right to the highest standard of behavior from those they invest with the power and authority of a law enforcement officer.  Honesty, credibility and temperament are crucial to the proper performance of an officer’s duties.  The importance of police honesty cannot be overstated. Police officers rely on the validity of information provided to them by fellow officers. Supervisors render decisions based on information received from officers. Citizens will better communicate and cooperate with law enforcement officials that they trust.

Prosecutors depend on honest reports, statements, and affidavits when prosecuting criminals. Judges rely on honesty in evaluating warrants. Jurors determine guilt or innocence and often liability based on an officer’s investigation and testimony.

As a matter of public policy, dishonesty by law enforcement officers cannot be condoned.


The findings of dishonesty essentially render Detective Shermer ineffective as a witness because of required Brady disclosures.


Kirsten H. Pabst
Missoula County Attorney

(406) 523-4737
FAX# (406) 523-4915

Notice of potential impeachment material RE: Officer Chris Shermer

To Whom it May Concern,

Detective Shermer was disciplined by the Missoula Police Department [MPD] in October 2010 for violating MPD policies. Specifically, Officer Shermer investigated a criminal defendant for internet child pornography offenses. The investigation resulted in the issuance of an arrest warrant for that defendant. Shermer went to Billings to search for the defendant and serve the arrest warrant. Shermer contacted a job service agency posing to be the wanted defendant and used the personal identifiers known to him through his access to the case file. After providing verifying information from the file, Detective Shermer obtained the user name and password for the defendant’s job service account and his last known address. Shermer later arrested the defendant by other means.”

Source and Full Document

Also Check Out



William M. Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.  This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.


{jcomments on}

    Leave a Reply