Investigative Report:

Matt McLeod Complaint

March 6, 2025

Yvette Heintzelman, Esq. Thomas Kotlowski

Clark Hill PLC Clarity One Solutions
130 E. Randolph Street, Suite 3900 P.O. Box 234
Chicago, IL 60601 Crystal Lake, IL 60039
847.971.0398 815.790.4939
 Content
 Confidential Investigative Report.
 Attachment #1: Butte / Silver Bow Montana Police Report.
 Attachment #2: Ada County Idaho Police Report.
 Attachment #3: Audio Recorded Interview with Dale Plessas.
 Attachment #4: Audio Recorded Interview with Charles Johnson.
 Attachment #5: Reddit Post.
 Attachment #6: Klug Notice of Internal Investigation / Garrity Advisement.
 Attachment #7: Audio Recorded Interview with John Klug.
 Attachment #8: McLeod Notice of Internal Investigation / Garrity Advisement.
 Attachment #9: Audio Recorded Interview with Matt McLeod.
 Attachment #10: Truthteller Email.
 Attachment #11: Prior Internal Investigation.
 Attachment #12: Memorandum completed by Dickerson.
 Attachment #13: Audio Recorded Interview with Corbin Dickerson.
 Attachment #14: NDBCI Police Reports.
 Attachment #15: McLeod Internet History.
 Attachment #16: McLeod Work Cell Phone Extraction.
 Attachment #17: Asham Notice of Internal Investigation / Garrity Advisement.
 Attachment #18: Recorded Interview with Carmen Asham.
 Attachment #19: Minot Police Department Policy Manual.
 Attachment #20: City of Minot Employee Policy Manual.
 Attachment #21: City of Minot Ethics Policy.

i
During a previous investigation, it was revealed that Minot Police Lieutenant Matt McLeod was
under criminal investigation by two out-of-state agencies: the Ada County Sheriff’s Office in Idaho
and the Butte-Silver Bow Sheriff’s Office in Montana.1 The North Dakota Bureau of Investigation
assisted both Ada and Butte Counties during this process and administered a polygraph exam,
which Lieutenant McLeod did not pass. Notably, the Minot Police Department conducted no
internal investigation regarding this incident. The purpose of this report is to conduct the
investigation that should have been conducted when Chief Klug was notified of the criminal
investigation into Lieutenant McLeod’s conduct to determine if any rules or policies were violated
and assess the potential impact on the City and the department.2 Below is a summary of that
investigation.

Complaint

In November 2023, a criminal investigation was initiated in Ada County, Idaho, and Butte,
Montana, after Lieutenant McLeod’s , disclosed to several counselors that she was
sexually assaulted and abused by him. It was alleged that Lieutenant McLeod had genital-to-
genital contact with when she was approximately four (4) years old while in Butte, Montana.
Butte / Silver Bow Sheriff’s Office investigated the case, labeling it as “11A Forcible Rape” and
identified the criminal offense as “45-5-503(4) Sexual Intercourse Without Consent Victim 12 or
Younger Offender 18 or Older.”

Further, Lieutenant McLeod was purported to have had manual to genital contact with when
she was approximately ten (10) years old in Ada County, Idaho. The Ada County Sheriff’s Office
investigated the case, labeling it as “Lewd Conduct with a Minor,” and identified the criminal
offense as “18-1508 Felony.”

North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) assisted with the case because the lead
agencies were out of state. BCI labeled the case as “Gross Sexual Imposition-Sexual Act-Victim
under 15-Defendant at least 22” and identified the criminal offense as “12.1-20-03(1)(d).” BCI
conducted an interview and a polygraph exam of Lieutenant McLeod during the assist. He failed
the exam, indicating he was deceptive and untruthful while answering questions about the case.
Ultimately, no charges were filed against Lieutenant McLeod. Both criminal cases in Ada and
Butte Counties remain “inactive” pending additional evidence.

1
On December 16, 2024, the City of Minot, North Dakota hired Clark Hill to investigate an allegation of sexual
assault against Lieutenant Matt McLeod by his In furtherance of this investigation, Clark Hill engaged the
services of Clarity One Solutions to aid Clark Hill in this investigation.
2
These allegations were thoroughly investigated consistent with the Department’s Personnel Complaint policy and
consistent with how this type of investigation would be completed for a current employee.

Page 1
Butte / Silver Bow Sheriff’s Office, Montana

A copy of the Butte / Silver Bow Montana police report was reviewed in relation to this incident
(attachment #1). To gain a better understanding of the case and verify the evidence identified in
the report, on December 13, 2024, Butte / Silver Bow County Sheriff Ed Lester was contacted via
phone (406-497-1121) to request permission to speak with the detective who handled the
investigation, later identified as Detective Anthony Jurenic. Sheriff Lester granted permission and
provided contact information for Detective Sergeant Jurenic, as well as for his supervisor, Captain
Jeff Williams. After several attempts to reach both Jurenic and Williams, Detective Sergeant
Jurenic was interviewed by phone regarding this case on January 15, 2025, at 3:11 p.m. (406-497-
1170).

During the interview, Detective Sergeant Jurenic provided an overview of his criminal
investigation involving Lieutenant McLeod. He described the case as difficult due to a lack of
substantial evidence, characterizing it as a “he said, she said” situation. He mentioned the
polygraph exam and noted that McLeod’s failure to pass it was not considered evidence since they
do not utilize polygraphs in their investigations. However, he admitted that McLeod’s failure
“bothered him.” Jurenic expressed his belief that “typically kids won’t make up stuff like this,”
referring to the allegations made by McLeod’s This case troubled him so much that he had
a long and thorough discussion with the prosecuting attorney about the challenges they faced in
obtaining a conviction. Ultimately, no charges were filed against McLeod.

Jurenic stated, “Everything pointed to he did it,” but he felt he did not have enough evidence to
formally charge Lieutenant McLeod with a crime. He expressed frustration over the idea that a
police officer, who is a “public servant,” might have committed such a crime and escaped
accountability. He speculated that if a similar situation occurred in his agency, it would create a
difficult work environment, as officers would feel “weird” about working with a colleague who
might have raped a child.

Detective Sergeant Jurenic expressed concerns about McLeod, explaining that he believed
“something happened” between McLeod and his , . His “gut feeling” was that Matt
McLeod was guilty of the sexual assault allegations made against him.

The interview ended at approximately 3:34 p.m.

Ada County Sheriff’s Office, Idaho

A copy of the Ada County, Idaho police report was reviewed regarding this incident (attachment
#2). To gain a clearer understanding of the case and verify the evidence identified in the report,
Ada County Sheriff Matt Clifford was contacted by phone on December 11, 2024 ( ).
He granted permission to speak with the detective who handled the investigation, identified as
Shannon Garza. On December 15, 2024, at approximately 11:00 a.m., Detective Garza was
interviewed by phone ( ).

Page 2
Detective Garza explained that she had been in law enforcement for thirteen years, having worked
for the Meridian Police Department before transferring to the Ada County Sheriff’s Office. She
spent six years as a school resource officer (SRO) and had prior interactions with the victim,
who was a student at the school where Detective Garza was assigned. Currently, she serves as a
juvenile detective in the Special Victims Unit, handling all child-related crimes.

Detective Garza confirmed that the report of abuse originated from multiple counselors who
disclosed the incidents to at different times and locations. While discussing the disclosures, she
verified Lieutenant McLeod’s attempt to discredit by claiming that the counselors failed to
report the disclosures, despite their obligation as mandated reporters. In Idaho, all adults, with
some exceptions for religious figures, are mandated reporters. Lieutenant McLeod believed that
the counselors’ failure to report the alleged abuse indicated that they did not believe However,
this assumption was inaccurate; all of the counselors reported the abuse as required. Lieutenant
McLeod’s attempt to discredit reflects behavior commonly exhibited by criminal suspects.

Detective Garza stated that the woman, later identified as Patty Weires, who conducted the forensic
interview of was highly competent and a lead interviewer. They frequently collaborated on
cases and participated in training sessions together. Detective Garza expressed that Ms. Weires
does an excellent job.

Detective Garza then discussed the outcomes of Lieutenant McLeod’s BCI interview as well as
her interviews with McLeod and other family members. She identified and confirmed some of the
evidence that emerged from these interviews, which included the following:

• Detective Garza found it odd that McLeod claimed to have never been alone with The
blanket denial of ever being alone was suspicious. Further, what he was accused of doing could
have happened when others were present in another room or upstairs. They did not need to be
totally alone for the abuse to have occurred.

• Lieutenant McLeod’s repeated vocalized dislike for the victim was odd as well. She
wondered how McLeod could have such strong feelings against a child. Especially after McLeod
made claims that he had not been around much, estimating it was only 12 times in her entire
life. It seemed to Detective Garza that he was trying to create some distance between him and the
victim, as if it could not be him who committed the abuse because they are never around one
another.

• Detective Garza also found Lieutenant McLeod’s claim that his only physical contact with
was during forced hugs when the families were leaving interesting. It was her opinion that
such behavior would be expected from A child would not want to hug someone who had
abused or was abusing them.

• She found Lieutenant McLeod’s suggestion to view TikTok an important statement.

Why would an adult man follow or view the social media account of a juvenile female, especially
one he claimed to dislike? Detective Garza said his statement reminded her of previous rape

Page 3
results of the BCI exam. McLeod declined to take another polygraph exam in Idaho when offered
by Detective Garza.

• had harmed herself through cutting. Detective Garza agreed this type of behavior is
typical of victims who have experienced some form of abuse in their lives.

• As proof of his innocence, Lieutenant McLeod claimed there was no accusation or

evidence of grooming. Detective Garza said he was right; however, grooming is not required for a
sexual assault to occur. disclosure was of a forced assault. An incident of sexual assault with
grooming would have been unforced and appear consensual.

• Lieutenant McLeod’s claim that the allegation against him was false because had no
injury or medical treatment. Detective Garza said it is known that female children, even as young
as 4 years old, can be penetrated by an adult male and show no signs of physical abuse, even during
a medical exam. The vagina would present as if it had never been penetrated.

Detective Garza spoke more about her past experience with as an SRO. She knew her to be
the type of child who was confident and unashamed to be herself. When got into trouble, she
was always honest and admitted what she had done.

Based on her experience and training, Detective Garza understood that there was likely some truth
to the disclosures made by children regarding abuse. She believed and was convinced that
had been sexually assaulted. Detective Garza felt that if had fabricated the abuse, she would
have confessed it to her, given their past relationship.

Detective Garza had a conversation with Chief Klug about this case on one occasion. He initially
reached out to her via email on April 29, 2024. They then spoke by phone during the first week of
May 2024, with Detective Garza’s sergeant present. Chief Klug did not conduct a case review with
Detective Garza or ask any questions regarding her investigation. The sole purpose of his call was
to inquire about the timeline for completing her investigation. Moreover, Chief Klug did not
discuss the case with anyone else; Detective Garza was the only person who had information about
it.

The interview ended at approximately 12:30 p.m.

Interview of Dale Plessas

On Wednesday, December 19, 2024, at approximately 3:20 p.m., Dale Plessas, a Captain for the
Minot Police Department, was interviewed. While given the opportunity, Captain Plessas did not
have an attorney present. He was given prior notice to attend the interview. The interview was
audio recorded with Captain Plessas’s knowledge per Minot Police Department Policy 1005;
Personnel Complaints (attachment #3).

Page 5
Captain Plessas began by providing a brief background on his career in Law Enforcement, having
been a police officer for the City of Minot for twenty-three (23) years and a captain for the last
four (4) years. Over his career, Captain Plessas has worked in several areas of the department and
is currently in charge of the Investigations Division. It is important to note that Captain Plessas
was interviewed about two separate topics. Lieutenant McLeod’s incident was discussed last.
Captain Plessas is the brother-in-law of Lieutenant McLeod and was at the locations at the same
time when the abuse was alleged to have occurred in both Montana and Idaho.

Speaking directly about this incident, Captain Plessas said he was aware of the complaint and had
been previously interviewed by the ADA County Detective. He had not read any of the police
reports that Ada County, Idaho, Butte / Silver Bow, Montana, or North Dakota Criminal
Investigations (NDBCI) completed. He did not know how many times claimed to have been
assaulted, just that they had occurred in Idaho and Montana.

Captain Plessas discussed his knowledge of the relationship between Lieutenant McLeod and
Information had been provided in the Ada County police report that the two of them did not get
along and did not like one another. Captain Plessas confirmed this, saying, “Matt did not like
or my sister , or because of the way they operated. They were, there was no
discipline…”. It was his opinion that could do what she wanted and be as mean as she wanted
to other family members without consequence. As a result, Captain Plessas said, “My sister Kristin
and Matt disliked that behavior.” Captain Plessas continued saying, “I’ve heard him (McLeod) say
many times he had a disdain for and the way she acted.” He confirmed having the same feeling
about describing her as “extremely mean” and “not fun to be around.”

Captain Plessas confirmed Lieutenant McLeod had contact with approximately twelve (12)
times since she was born. Despite this, McLeod could still develop a strong opinion against
Captain Plessas believes this was due to her negative behavior towards Lieutenant McLeod’s
children.

Calling upon Captain Plessas’s experience as a police officer, and his time in investigations, he
was asked what were some of the reasons people sexually assault or abuse children. Sexual
gratification and control were two examples he provided, saying, “Control is a major factor…”.
When asked, Captain Plessas said there was no profile for offenders of child sex crimes. Later, he
admitted to being aware of police officers within the state who had recently been arrested for
similar crimes. Any profession could have offenders of child sex crimes.

While he could not provide specific examples, Captain Plessas said he knew to be untruthful,
saying, “That is something she would do. If it was in her favor, she would say it. For example, she
would accuse Matt’s kids of doing something they didn’t do.”

He estimated the Minot Police Department took approximately one hundred (100) Child Sex cases
a year. The department utilizes a Child Advocacy Center (CAC) to conduct forensic interviews of
the child victims. Captain Plessas could not say if children’s disclosures in these types of cases
were more often found to be truthful or false. He speculated the number of times children made
false disclosures was low, saying, “doesn’t happen that often.” When asked what were some signs

Page 6
Lieutenant McLeod towards He admitted grooming was not a requirement for a sexual assault
or sexual abuse to occur.

Captain Plessas disclosed after hearing the allegations against Lieutenant McLeod, he checked on
his children to ensure they were not victims of similar abuse. When asked why he did this if he
believed Lieutenant McLeod did not sexually assault he said, “When you hear something like
that, you want to know. So that’s the first thing I did was check. Because you never know 100%
on anybody right. You just don’t know.” No one has checked on Lieutenant McLeod’s children,
who are twin girls the same age as the victim If a similar case occurred in Minot, he admitted
conducting a forensic interview of the suspect’s children is something you would want to do.

Captain Plessas told Detective Garza that Lieutenant McLeod was not alone long enough for the
sexual assault or abuse to have occurred. was never alone, and he described her mother, ,
as a “helicopter parent.” But when asked, he agreed it did not take long for a sexual abuse or assault
to occur, nor did it have to only occur when the offender and victim were alone.

Based on his training and experience, Captain Plessas agreed there was an emotional response by
children during the abuse, saying, “I’m sure there is.” Some examples of these emotional responses
could be “blacking out” or blocking out the full memory of the abuse. He confirmed his statement
to Detective Garza, suggesting consider the possibility of other abusers instead of Lieutenant
McLeod. Other family members had accused Jimmy, , of committing the abuse.
However, Captain Plessas did not see anything that made him suspect Jimmy was capable of
abusing children. Jimmy was considered “creepy” by others, including Captain Plessas’s children.
Jimmy was known for being a person who enjoyed “partying” and was always pushing shots of
alcohol on everyone, except for the children.

As an example of this behavior, at Captain Plessas’s stepmother’s funeral, Jimmy was “pushing
shots” on his stepmother’s sister. Jimmy had offered tobacco vape pens to the juveniles. Captain
Plessas agreed with the description that Jimmy was a child in a 50-year-old’s body. Captain Plessas
provided an example to help explain Jimmy’s “creepy” behavior. While on a vacation with family
at a beach rental, everyone was going for a walk. Captain Plessas’s 16-year-old daughter did not
want to go. Jimmy offered to stay behind and “babysit” her. Captain Plessas and his wife found
this to be a creepy offer. A 16-year-old did not need a babysitter. He questioned why Jimmy wanted
to stay home alone with her. Captain Plessas admits that the odd or “creepy” behavior could be a
cultural difference, as Jimmy is Vietnamese.

Captain Plessas believed that if was sexually assaulted, and it was not Lieutenant McLeod, she
chose to accuse Matt of the sexual abuse because she did not like him. did not like Lieutenant
McLeod because he never masked his disdain for her behavior. But he also never corrected

It was also possible that picked Lieutenant McLeod to blame because the true offender was a
close family member, and she did not want to disrupt the family environment. When asked, Captain
Plessas agreed children usually disclose abuse because they want the abuse to stop. With this in
mind, Captain Plessas was asked, why then would identify someone who was not abusing her
as the offender instead of the actual offender, which would result in stopping the abuse. He did not

Page 8
have an answer to the question, agreeing accusing McLeod would not stop Jimmy from abusing
her.

Assuming the abuse allegations from were not true and she made them up, Captain Plessas
was asked why would limit her false accusations to just a few incidents. He said that was a
good question but did not have an answer. While it was not common, it was possible could
have been left alone with other people. This means the claim by others that was never away
from her mother, is not an accurate statement.

Captain Plessas was asked how the accusations against Lieutenant McLeod affected the
department, especially after the recent accusations against him that the Valley City Police
Department investigated. He said, “It’s not good for the department to have an officer accused of
anything. It’s not healthy.” People within the agency learned about the investigation of Lieutenant
McLeod in Idaho and Montana from informal conversations with BCI Officers. They had given
Minot Officers a “heads up.”

When asked if a possible motive for Lieutenant McLeod to sexually assault could be his desire
to control her because others weren’t, Captain Plessas said, “Not from everything I’ve known of
him. But is it possible somebody would do that, yeah. Somebody might.”

The interview ended at approximately 5:19 p.m.

Interview of Charles (Shane) Johnson

On Thursday, December 20, 2024, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Charles (Shane) Johnson, a
Sergeant for the Minot Police Department, was interviewed. While given the opportunity, Sergeant
Johnson did not have an attorney present. He was given prior notice to attend the interview, which
was audio recorded with Sergeant Johnson’s knowledge per Minot Police Department Policy 1005;
Personnel Complaints (attachment #4).

Sergeant Johnson began by providing a brief overview of his career in law enforcement. He has
been a police officer for the City of Minot for approximately fourteen years and has served as a
Sergeant for the last three years. He is currently assigned to the Investigations Division.
Throughout his career, Sergeant Johnson has worked in several areas within the department, most
recently in the Narcotics Task Force.

Sergeant Johnson confirmed that he submitted a records request and obtained a copy of the police
report documenting the McLeod sexual assault case from the Bureau of Criminal Investigation
(BCI). He expressed his interest in the case, stating that he felt the Minot Police Department
operated like a “good old boys club.” In January or February of 2024, the department received
notification that Lieutenant McLeod was “gone” for an unknown reason, which raised suspicions
for Sergeant Johnson. Rumors began to circulate, with some speculating that a prior investigation
conducted by the Valley City Police Department regarding allegations of sexual assault against
Lieutenant McLeod had finally “caught up to him.” Department members were aware of the Valley

Page 9
City investigation because it had been posted on the social media site Reddit, allowing the public
to view and comment on it (attachment #5).

(https://www.reddit.com/r/northdakota/comments/oi06ef/minot_police_officer_accused_of_sexu
al misconduct/).

People within the agency began to inquire about why Lieutenant McLeod was away from the
department for an extended period of time when, without explanation, on July 5, 2024 McLeod
returned to full duty. Sergeant Johnson said that based on his experience and on what he had “seen
over the years,” people do not typically “disappear” for five (5) months and then just show back
up. Sergeant Johnson felt the situation surrounding McLeod’s lengthy absence from the
department needed to be “looked into” to ensure nothing was being “covered up” by the
department. Sergeant Johnson said he feels there should be a higher level of integrity for police
officers, saying, “I feel like in this capacity, especially when you’re ranking in this capacity, which
is a pretty serious allegation to just never be explained.” Lt. McLeod’s actions as a Minot Police
Officer do not just represent him alone, they represent the entire department and City of Minot.
Sergeant Johnson said, “If I do something stupid, it affects everybody that wears a uniform.
Because the public doesn’t trust us now because one of us [sic] did you know.”

After Lieutenant McLeod returned to the department, he told Sergeant Steve Schoenrock that he
(McLeod) was away for “mental health” reasons. A few weeks later, McLeod told the “patrol
shifts” about the allegations made against him by his and that BCI had investigated it and
“cleared” him of it. Sergeant Johnson said he had previously worked out of the BCI Office while
assigned to the Narcotics Task Force. He knew how they worked, saying BCI is an assisting
agency, meaning they would not “clear” anyone. They would only assist the requesting agency.

This was a red flag to him because the agency has always held that “if you lie, you’re done. But it
depends on who we think you lied to.” In this incident, Sergeant Johnson is accusing Lieutenant
McLeod of lying. First to Sergeant Schoenrock after declaring he was out for several months due
to “mental health” when really it was because he was being investigated for a crime. Sergeant
Johnson said, “That’s a fucking lie. So why is it that when you lie to other officers, it’s just no big
deal, but if Klug or somebody thinks you lied to them, then you’re done.”

Second, he claimed to the patrol shifts that he had been “cleared” of any wrongdoing by BCI when
BCI is only an assisting agency and did not make a determination of their own. Sergeant Johnson
admitted not hearing these “lies” directly from McLeod, nor could he recall who told him of the
alleged statements.

Sergeant Johnson felt the incident involving McLeod and his should be investigated beyond
whatever the department may have done. He has worked on Internet Crimes Against Children
(ICAC) cases and knows cases like the one Lieutenant McLeod was investigated for were rarely
prosecuted, whether they were true or not. Just because McLeod wasn’t arrested for the offense
doesn’t mean it did not occur.

Page 10
This prompted him to file the open records request for the police reports. He reviewed the Valley
City police report documenting the rape allegations against McLeod and felt that case “doesn’t
hold as much weight to me” compared to the case involving McLeod and his The victim in
the Valley City case “scatter bombed complaints against a variety of men.” However, when
Sergeant Johnson reviewed the most recent case against McLeod, based on his (Johnson)
experience investigating similar cases and “common sense,” Johnson felt the case “was pretty
credible.”

Sergeant Johnson gave some reasons for this belief. First was the manner in which the case was
reported. People trying to get others in trouble report directly to Law Enforcement, not counselors,
as had happened in this case. Next, Sergeant Johnson identified the failed polygraph exam. Finally,
Lieutenant McLeod tried to discredit the victim and offer an alternate suspect who may have
committed the crime to BCI investigators. These were all red flags for Sergeant Johnson based on
his experience as an investigator. He spoke with his supervisor, Captain Plessas, who is McLeod’s
brother-in-law, about the case, and he, too, was trying to discredit the victim.

In his years as an investigator, Sergeant Johnson said he has never experienced a time when they
tried to get character witnesses against a victim. Sergeant Johnson said, “I think that’s kinda [sic]
suspicious.” He felt the victim simply disclosed the abuse and did not have an agenda. Sergeant
Johnson said the suggestion that it was the victim’s father who committed the abuse was suspicious
behavior, saying, “In my opinion, the options are this: she’s lying, and it wasn’t me. Not, she’s
lying about it being me, and someone else probably did it. That’s a weird route to take.” Sergeant
Johnson recalled McLeod accusing the victim of being “a little slut on TikTok.” He questioned
why McLeod would follow her on TikTok, a social media site. Those were the red flags. When he
combined the red flags with the failed polygraph, it seemed more likely than not that McLeod was
guilty of the crime to Sergeant Johnson.

Talking more about polygraph exams, Sergeant Johnson said he did not have much experience
with them but had taken one for pre-employment before. He understood that people can be nervous
while taking them, but the exam should be a simple process if you did not commit the crime.
Sergeant Johnson described an internal investigation he was the subject of that Chief Klug
conducted. Within the report, Chief Klug documented the physical appearance of the suspect while
being questioned, including his “red face,” and the person being interviewed “wouldn’t look at
him.” Sergeant Johnson questioned how was is it ok for Chief Klug to use these physical indicators
as his lie detector in his investigation but discount the polygraph result from a “proven piece of
equipment” in the McLeod matter. That conclusion seemed like inequality to Sergeant Johnson.

Sergeant Johnson did not really know Lieutenant McLeod. Lieutenant McLeod had conducted an
internal investigation on Sergeant Johnson years prior when Lieutenant McLeod was assigned to
the Professional Standards unit. Lieutenant McLeod did not sustain the complaint against Sergeant
Johnson.

Sergeant Johnson said these accusations have “caused me to lose faith in the City of Minot, and
the Police Department and everything. That’s a real egregious, like that’s probably the most serious
accusation that could ever be posed against somebody. I just feel like there should be a lot more

Page 11
definitive resolution to this. I think, based on what we can see in these reports and this
investigation, that it’s more likely than not that something occurred.” Sergeant Johnson said, “I
don’t want to work in law enforcement with a guy that I think molested a child.”

Because of how strongly Sergeant Johnson felt about the accusations against McLeod and the fact
he believed there was more evidence to suggest something did occur than it did not, he questioned
how the city responded to the allegations, particularly how they handled McLeod—allowing him
to have an office in city hall and work on projects. He did not believe the City of Minot had all of
the information on this incident, saying, “It was kinda [sic] apparent to me they were not aware of
it.” meaning how could they allow him to remain at work after being accused of such a terrible
crime? This drove Sergeant Johnson to ensure the documents the City had related to the case
matched the documents he obtained from BCI. This would ensure a proper internal investigation
could be done. Sergeant Johnson said, “Reading Klug’s letter, there wasn’t (a proper internal
investigation). His letter clearing him doesn’t even state what he investigated. Which is suspicious
to me.” Had a proper internal investigation been completed into the accusations against McLeod,
“he would be gone.” Meaning Matt McLeod would no longer be a police officer employed by the
City of Minot. He did not feel the failure to prosecute McLeod was a reason to say “we’re good,”
especially because “in law enforcement, we know a majority of those don’t get prosecuted because
it’s a challenging prosecution.” Sergeant Johnson felt that only Chief Klug knew about the details
of the criminal investigation and the matter was “covered up.”

Looking at the totality of the situation, Sergeant Johnson said having the Valley City investigation,
having an affair, and directing his subordinates to lie for him to cover it up, and now this allegation
from his “it kinda [sic] seems like there’s a pattern of sexual misconduct with this guy.” He
did not feel Lieutenant McLeod was of “sound moral character,” a requirement he felt was
necessary to be a police officer, highlighting again the instances when he believed McLeod had
lied.

Sergeant Johnson spoke with BCI Investigator Cassidy Halseth about this case. Halseth is an ICAC
investigator. While he had not conducted the investigation into McLeod himself, he did hear some
of the details from other BCI investigators after the reports came out. From this information,
Sergeant Johnson reported that Halseth told him, based on the details and his (Halseth’s)
experience conducting similar cases, it was his (Halsteth’s) opinion that it was in the “90%”
probability that the sexual assault occurred, and McLeod was likely the offender.

However, prosecutors were often reluctant to move forward with these types of cases. Sergeant
Johnson believed a jury should decide these cases. He agreed that while probable cause to arrest
someone may be present for police, prosecutors were looking for evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt. In other words, prosecutors are looking for a case they were sure to win, and that sometimes
factored into their approval of charges.

The interview ended at approximately 10:35 a.m.

Page 12
Interview of John Klug

On Thursday, December 20, 2024, at approximately 4:00 p.m. John Klug, Chief of Police for the
Minot Police Department, was interviewed. His attorney, Jesse Walstad, accompanied him via
video and audio conferencing. Chief Klug was given prior notice to attend the interview. Upon
arrival, he was presented with the Minot Police Department’s “Notice of Internal Investigation /
Garrity Advisement.” He took the form into his own hands, reviewed it, initialed it, and signed it
in the required and appropriate locations (attachment #6). The interview was audio recorded with
his knowledge per Minot Police Department Policy 1005; Personnel Complaints (attachment #7).

Chief Klug began by providing a brief background on his career in Law Enforcement. He has been
a police officer for the City of Minot for nearly thirty (30) years and the Chief since 2020. Over
his career, Chief Klug has worked in several areas of the department, gaining valuable experience.
It has always been his goal to one day be the Chief of Police for the Minot Police Department.

Chief Klug stated he was first made aware of the case after being contacted by a chief agent with
BCI, who informed him Lieutenant McLeod was the suspect in a case BCI was assisting Idaho and
Montana with investigating. BCI acts as an assisting agency for other law enforcement agencies
and only has jurisdiction over cases involving task force operations such as ICAC or Narcotics or
cases assigned by the Attorney General. Either that same day or the next day, Lieutenant McLeod
informed Chief Klug of the investigation as well. Through his conversations with BCI and
Lieutenant McLeod, Chief Klug knew the accusations against Lieutenant McLeod were related to
the sexual assault of his

After taking a few days to “wrap his head” around the accusations, Chief Klug placed Lieutenant
McLeod on administrative leave. This was done to help protect the citizens of Minot, ensuring
Lieutenant McLeod could not have professional contact with any juveniles that he could victimize.
He agreed that this also was to protect the image of the police department and the City of Minot
as a whole.

When he initially heard the allegations against Lieutenant McLeod, it made him “a little sick to
my stomach that this could be happening.” However, when Lieutenant McLeod came to see him,
and he could “see the loss in his face, it did give me a little reassurance that he had no idea what
was going on. He was just besides [sic] himself. Not because, it didn’t seem like an, oh they got
me moment. It seemed like a true, this is ridiculous, and this is going to tear me apart.” Chief Klug
said there was no profile of a person who committed these types of crimes and was aware of past
incidents where police officers had committed them. He had sat on the POST board for many years
and saw many similar cases come to the board.

POST is an acronym for the Police Officer Standards and Training, an organization responsible
for setting standards for law enforcement officers in the State of North Dakota as well as revoking
the authority of an officer who violated the standards set. https://www.post.nd.gov/index.html

Chief Klug spoke with the Idaho and Montana Detectives who were investigating the crimes in
their respective jurisdictions. He had a “quick call” with the Montana sergeant, later identified as

Page 13
Detective Sergeant Anthony Jurenic, who handled the case. He informed him about the failed
polygraph and that he did not expect charges to be brought against Lieutenant McLeod. He did not
do a case review with Detective Sergeant Jurenic.

He had some difficulties contacting the Ada County detective, later identified as Detective
Shannon Garza. This prompted him to submit a records request for the police report from the Ada
County Sheriff’s office. He was finally able to obtain an email for Detective Garza, which resulted
in him being able to speak with her and have a “pretty good conversation about the case.” Chief
Klug claimed to have spoken with Detective Garza more than once, with the first time being with
Garza and her Sergeant. They offered to answer any questions Chief Klug had. However, Chief
Klug admitted he “really didn’t know anything” at the time, so he “didn’t have a lot of questions.”
His communication with Detective Garza revolved around asking about the status of her case.

Chief Klug read the reports, and what stood out to him was that both Montana and Idaho were not
going to use the failed polygraph from BCI. The Ada County polygrapher didn’t like the way BCI
conducted their polygraph exam, didn’t think it was going to be valid, and wanted their own
completed. That put some question in Chief Klug’s head about the BCI polygraph. He did not
speak with BCI about their polygraph report, nor did he review it.

He kept the internal investigation himself due to conflicts with the other command staff members.
The person assigned to Professional Standards was the same rank as Lieutenant McLeod. Chief
Klug preferred investigations to be done by people one rank above the accused. Captain Plessas
was McLeod’s brother-in-law; Captain Sundheim was formerly accused of having a close
friendship with McLeod that allegedly affected his ability to conduct an unbiased investigation,
and Captain Sundbakken was leaving for vacation. Klug would keep the investigation, and if it
“turned into something that needed more leg work,” he would reassign it to Captain Sundbakken.

When asked if an internal investigation was completed, Chief Klug said, “There wasn’t a...I
basically took all the information when they were done with it, and I used that to make my decision.
So, there wasn’t a separate internal, like interviews that kinda [sic] thing.” Chief Klug claimed he
would “generally” ask BCI to assist with interviews in situations like this but could not do so this
time because of their involvement in the criminal case. So instead, he relied on the work the
detectives already did and relied on the interviews he could get from them. Chief Klug believed
the information was “covered well” in the police report.

Chief Klug agreed that Idaho and Montana were conducting a criminal investigation, gathering
evidence, and looking for violations of law. He was doing an internal investigation looking for
department rules, regulations, policy, and procedure violations. Chief Klug was asked if it was
possible that the detectives did not ask questions that he would have wanted to ask, which could
have provided information about any possible rule, regulation, policy, or procedure violations by
Lieutenant McLeod. Chief Klug said, “I did think about that as I read through the report, and that’s
what I was looking for more than anything was what’s missing for me to make a decision. I
couldn’t think of anything that was really critical.”

Page 14
He admitted not knowing or asking the detectives if Lieutenant McLeod had asked for special
treatment or favoritism due to his position as a Minot Police Officer. He also admitted that had
Lieutenant McLeod done so, it would have constituted a violation of department rules and
regulations, and that information may not have been in the police report or made its way to Chief
Klug.

Chief Klug admitted to not having much information about polygraph exams. When asked if the
failure by Lieutenant McLeod raised concern for Chief Klug about truthfulness, he said, “yea, I
think again, when I first heard about the polygraph, the failed polygraph, it caused some question.”
However, after speaking with Detective Garza, it put some question in his mind about the
legitimacy of the exam. Detective Sergeant Jurenic was not interested in a polygraph exam as his
agency did not use them in criminal cases. Chief Klug knew that Lieutenant McLeod was offered
a chance to complete another polygraph exam in Idaho but that he declined their offer.

He agreed that the Minot Police Department worked closer with BCI than with the Ada County
Sheriff’s Office. Over time, he and his agency have developed a good working relationship with
BCI and its investigators. Chief Klug was “on the fence” about whether he believed in polygraph
exams. If Minot Police had BCI assist in an investigation and they conducted a polygraph exam,
he “would want to believe it is true.”

Next, Chief Klug talked about the email complaint received in 2022 from the sender “truthteller.”
Several department members, including Lieutenant McLeod, were accused of wrongdoing in the
email. It was alleged at the time that Lieutenant McLeod had several affairs and had directed a
subordinate to lie for him if asked, saying they “had lunch Friday” when they did not. After an
internal investigation was completed, it was revealed that the officer had received a text message
from Lieutenant McLeod asking him to lie. McLeod did so to cover up the affair he was having.
Chief Klug remembered the internal investigation but did not recall all of the details.

Chief Klug was asked, if it was learned the text message was sent, and Lieutenant McLeod
admitted to sending it to cover for the affair, why did Chief Klug un-sustain the complaint? After
much discussion, Chief Klug admitted he did not listen to the recorded interviews. He did not get
“stuck in policing moral belief.” Even after reading the department rules and regulations that
Lieutenant McLeod violated, Chief Klug still did not feel it was a sustained incident of
untruthfulness. However, if Lieutenant McLeod had lied in the internal investigation, then he
would have been disciplined for his untruthfulness. Essentially, he is saying as Chief of Police, he
is ok with someone lying so long as if, and when they get caught, they tell the truth and admit to
the lie. Chief Klug said, “If it’s kind of a white lie and doesn’t have an impact on our operations…”.
It was clarified with Chief Klug that what he was saying was that he was ok with untruthfulness
so long as it wasn’t related to work. In response, he said, “I think that there is some self-
preservation that goes into personal relationships.” He admitted to having a responsibility under
Brady to report untruthfulness and that Brady is not limited to just on-duty conduct. The

Page 15
requirement is only that the allegation of untruthfulness be sustained. Chief Klug said, “We can
take untruthfulness to a pretty varying degree.”3

Chief Klug confirmed the department has a policy regarding personal complaints, and he was
aware of what the policy requires to be done during internal investigations. When asked, he
admitted not following the personal complaint policy, saying, “The only part that I’m aware that I
didn’t follow was doing a separate and not relying on the criminal investigation.” Later, he
admitted that he had not conducted a separate interview with Lieutenant McLeod and had not
completed a report documenting an internal investigation.

His experience was that when criminal cases are presented to prosecutors if charges are not
approved, that does not mean the crime was not committed. Instead, the prosecutor’s decision to
approve charges is often influenced by several factors, including law enforcement’s threshold for
arrest being probable cause. The standard for convicting an individual of a crime is evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt. For purposes of sustaining a violation of a policy, the Department
must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct occurred.

Based on the Valley City investigation, the emailed complaint from the “truthteller,” the public
knowledge of McLeod’s affairs, and now this most recent accusation from his Chief Klug
was asked if these repeated complaints or allegations against Lieutenant McLeod, and the image
it presented, negatively affected the department. He said, “I think it does. I think anything that. I
think from a standpoint of what it looks like.” Chief Klug believed it could impact Lieutenant
McLeod’s ability to lead.

Chief Klug was asked if, based on his experience, there were any details he read in the Ada County
Police report that led him to believe the sexual assault of did not occur. He could not provide
any details, which caused him to draw that conclusion, saying, “I guess I can’t recall anything.”
Chief Klug was then provided with some evidence identified in the Ada County police report.
They included:

• The victim reported the abuse three times to a counselor, and there was consistency in what
she reported in all three instances.

3
“Brady” refers to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). A Supreme Court case that established
the Brady Rule, confirming due process requires the prosecution to turn over evidence favorable
to the accused and material to his guilt or punishment. This requirement to disclose evidence
favorable to the accused (exculpatory evidence) includes evidence that may be used to impeach
the prosecution’s witnesses, including the police officers that were involved in the investigation of
the crime and prosecution of the violations of the law. Police officers and police agencies are, for
purposes of Brady, considered to be part of the prosecution’s team. Law enforcement agencies
must, also provide documentation regarding a police officer’s conduct that may affect the police
officer’s credibility including instances where they have falsified evidence, reports or lied or made
false statements. Law enforcement agencies are required to notify the prosecuting attorney of any
sustained incidents or untruthfulness of officers they employ.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep373083/

Page 16
• There were some accusations or suggestions from a family member that said the victim
was lying about the abuse in an attempt to get Lieutenant McLeod in trouble because the victim
did not like McLeod. She did not like him because somehow, she knew about McLeod’s affairs.
Therefore, the victim wanted to get him in trouble. It is known with child crimes that if a child
wants to get someone in trouble, they report the abuse to the police and not just a counselor. Police
“get people in trouble,” not counselors.

• It is known that when there is a traumatic event like a sexual assault with a child, they
oftentimes do not remember everything and report “blacking out.” While they do not lose
consciousness, they do block out some details of the abuse. This is a subconscious defense against
the abuse.

• Without knowing, the family verified the evidence presented by the victim. During their
interviews with law enforcement, they searched old photos, social media posts, receipts, VRBO
bookings, and more to develop a timeline of when the families were together. The victim did not
have these things available to her, but she was able to recall the same details as many as 10 years
later. Presumably, this was due to the traumatic incident being burned into her memory.

• Despite being 14 years old, she disclosed in the language of a 4-year-old. The victim said
vaginas are for making babies. The penis is used to put the babies in. This is known to occur with
children who are victims of sexual trauma. To revert back to the time of the abuse when describing
the incident.

• The family does not say that abuse did not occur. Instead, they provide their opinion on
who the abuser was instead of Lieutenant McLeod. They accuse the victim’s father,

• It is known as suspect behavior and is considered a red flag when suspects try to discredit
the victim or suggest who was responsible for the crime they are suspected of committing.
Lieutenant McLeod did both of these things.

• The lack of incidents reported by the victim was also noted as an important piece of
evidence. If the victim was being untruthful in an effort to get Lieutenant McLeod in trouble, why
would she only disclose a few incidents and not claim the abuse happened several times?

Chief Klug admitted he did not recognize these pieces of evidence on his own saying, “I didn’t.”
Chief Klug noted a few things within the report that he would have done differently, including
separating the mother and father during their interviews. He speculated the mother may not have
been as open to the possibility that her husband was the abuser with him present. It was his
experience that sometimes a child would disclose abuse happening and accuse someone outside of
the family when the abuser was truly a parent or sibling. He was asked if it was agreed the reason
children disclose abuse was because they want the abuse to stop, how would falsely identifying
the abuser help stop the abuse? Chief Klug agreed it wouldn’t help stop the abuse.

Page 17
Chief Klug admitted that if given the chance to do something differently regarding his internal
investigation of Lieutenant McLeod on this incident, he said he would have given the case to
someone else. He was too busy and should have “realized I had so much on my plate already, and
an internal is not something that I should be holding on to.” Chief Klug was asked, based on the
information he had on this case, to include the information provided to him today if he had
developed an opinion on whether the abuse of occurred or did not occur, regardless of who the
offender was. He said, “I would say that I don’t have an opinion, but I would think there’s enough
question in my head that I would definitely take another run at that. I don’t think I’d be satisfied
with the result that’s there.”

The interview ended at approximately 5:29 p.m. It is important to note that Chief Klug was
interviewed about two separate topics. Lieutenant McLeod’s complaint was discussed second.

Ward County States Attorney

On Friday, January 10, 2025, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Ward County States Attorney Rosa
Larson was contacted via phone (701-857-6480). The purpose of the conversation was to inform
her of Lieutenant McLeod’s polygraph failure in order to meet the reporting requirements under
Brady V Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady rule

Prior notice of his failed polygraph exam was never given to States Attorney Larson’s office. She
requested the City of Minot Police Department to provide written documentation of the
information also be provided.

The phone call ended at approximately 1:26 p.m.

Interview of Matt McLeod

On Friday, January 10, 2025, at approximately 8:00 a.m., Matt McLeod, a Lieutenant for the Minot
Police Department, was interviewed. He was accompanied by his attorney, Tanya Martinez.
Lieutenant McLeod was given prior notice to attend the interview and completed the Minot Police
Department “Notice of Internal Investigation / Garrity Advisement” (attachment #8). The
interview was audio recorded with his knowledge per Minot Police Department Policy 1005;
Personnel Complaints (attachment #9).

Lieutenant McLeod began by providing a brief background on his career in Law Enforcement,
having been a police officer for the City of Minot for nearly twenty-three (23) years. He worked
for the Grand Forks Police Department for approximately 2.5 years prior to being hired by the
Minot Police Department. Lieutenant McLeod explained the various ranks he had held over the
years, from Officer, Senior Officer, Detective, Sergeant, and finally Lieutenant. Over his career,
Lieutenant McLeod has worked in several areas of the department, including records,
investigations, patrol, and professional standards.

Page 18
He went through an assessment and testing for the ranks of Sergeant and Lieutenant. Amongst
other things, the candidates’ leadership qualities were evaluated during those assessments. He
agreed that a leader helped move the agency forward based on the goals and objectives the Chief
of Police sets for the agency. A leader is someone to whom people can look up and to see the right
way of doing things and the right way to act. Lieutenant McLeod agreed that the added
responsibility of being promoted and considered a leader in the agency affected someone both
personally and professionally. Speaking about the added personal responsibilities of being
promoted, Lieutenant McLeod said you are “looked at differently” by the community. He agreed
there was a higher level of expectation from others because of what rank was on his collar.

Next, he spoke about what made a person a professional police officer. Some personal traits
required to be a professional are good ethics, morals, honesty, trustworthiness, reliability, and care
about others. Honesty is one of the most important traits that helps build community trust. He
agreed that community trust is important in law enforcement, saying that “it should be.” Lieutenant
McLeod was asked if he could provide an example of when trust in the police eroded within the
community. He said, “Minneapolis.” Honesty was also crucial for an officer to be able to testify
in court, as people are often convicted, and their freedom is taken away based on the officer’s
statement alone.

Lieutenant McLeod said he was a professional police officer.

Next, he discussed his opinion on what made a police department a professional agency.
Lieutenant McLeod said, “Hiring professional police officers to do the job. Knowing when they’ve
done something wrong and trying to fix it.” Not ignoring issues. Having clear, up-to-date policies,
rules, and regulations was also important for a police department to be professional.

Lieutenant McLeod said the Minot Police Department was “trying to be” a professional police
department.

Lieutenant McLeod spoke about how he investigated cases while assigned to the Investigations
Unit. Part of the evidence he gathered to develop a suspect was to assess whether they were at the
location of the crime, had the ability to commit the crime, had the time to commit the crime, and
had a reason to commit the crime. Lieutenant McLeod agreed that during interviews, suspects
displayed some common behaviors. These can sometimes include discrediting the victim and
offering an alternate suspect.

During his career, he had worked with outside agencies on cases, including the North Dakota
Bureau of Investigation (BCI), the Sheriff’s Office, the State Highway Patrol, and some federal
agencies. The Minot Police Department works with other agencies “daily,” explaining they have
officers assigned to a BCI task force. Lieutenant McLeod was asked if he felt BCI was a
professional agency. He said, “I used to think so,” but he changed his mind due to “their behavior
over the past year,” referring to the criminal investigation they assisted with involving Lieutenant
McLeod and the accusations made by his When asked if BCI officers were good
investigators, he said, “Well, they screwed me over and then talked crap about me around the state
for the past year, so my opinion has changed.” Lieutenant McLeod was asked, putting his incident

Page 19
aside, if he had a different opinion of the investigators for BCI. He said, “My opinion right now is
no,” and “I don’t trust them.”

He talked about several factors that add stress to officers. Some of these things include knowing
that despite their best efforts the bad guy sometimes gets away. He agreed that just because an
officer does not get charges approved by the State’s Attorney does not mean the officer did a bad
job.

Another reason a police officer encounters stress is the knowledge that, as an officer, you are no
longer an individual. Police officer’s actions, both on and off duty, are no longer their own. The
officer’s actions, on and off duty, affect the individual, the agency, and the profession. The
example of George Floyd was given—an adult male who police officers in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, killed. Lieutenant McLeod knew of the incident but could not provide the officers’
names but knew the agency. As a result of that police encounter, riots, and civil unrest occurred
nationwide. Lieutenant McLeod’s attention was drawn to the fact that he could not recall the
officers’ names but knowing which police department was involved was evidence that the actions
of an individual police officer affected the agency as a whole. He agreed that as a police officer,
you are not an individual.

Lieutenant McLeod talked about his assignment to the Professional Standards Unit. It was his
responsibility to conduct all of the agency’s internal investigations. Chief Klug developed the
position to ensure agency members followed policy and procedure. This helped avoid the cost of
joining CALEA while still professionalizing the agency. 4

The position was challenging “Because you become the person that nobody wants to talk to.” He
was the one who always reviewed their work, being the “watchdog type.” His job was to make
sure they’re doing things correctly. He volunteered for the assignment because he did not want to
be on the night shift, as it was bad for his family life. Lieutenant McLeod was asked if the position
was rewarding at all. He said, “probably not.” Despite this, he agreed that the activities of the
Professional Standards Unit professionalized the agency. There had been cases he investigated that
resulted in an officer being separated from the department, and that separation was a good thing
for the agency as a whole. While no one ever came and told him directly, the investigation could
have helped increase the agency’s morale. The investigations ensure that a professional police
department has professional police officers. He agreed, no officer wanted to work with a bad
officer because when an officer does something wrong, it isn’t “Officer Tom” who did it. Instead,
it is seen as a Minot Police Officer who did something wrong. He agreed that as an investigator of
internal complaints, Lieutenant McLeod was helping to build and maintain public trust and that
his assignment as the internal investigator was an important position for the department.

4
The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) is a credentialing
authority created through the joint efforts of law enforcement’s major executive associations. The
CALEA Accreditation program seals are reserved for the use of public safety agencies that have
demonstrated compliance with CALEA Standards and have been awarded CALEA Accreditation
by the Commission (https://www.calea.org).

Page 20
He spoke briefly about a separate incident involving other employees, Captain Sundheim and
Sergeant Schoenrock. During this discussion, Lieutenant McLeod agreed that rumors, whether true
or false, can negatively impact the person being accused, both personally and professionally,
saying, “Very much so, yeah.” Lieutenant McLeod said personally, “It ruins your life. The truth
doesn’t matter, the allegations do. That’s all anybody cares about. That’s why I’m where I’m at.
Nobody cares about the truth. Whether in the PD or in the public. They hear some bullshit, and it’s
the truth for them. That’s all they go with.” Talking about the professional impact, I asked him if
the rumor could impact the person’s ability to lead. He said, “Yeah. It ruins their reputation. All
we have is our reputation in this job.” Lieutenant McLeod again agreed that rumors within the
agency affect the person, the morale of other officers, the agency, and the public trust.

Lieutenant McLeod explained the accusation made against him by . He first learned of the
allegations in July 2023 but did not report it to Chief Klug until his father-in-law informed him in
January 2024 that reported the incidents to law enforcement. The reason he did not inform
Chief Klug immediately was because he felt the accusation was “horse shit” and was
“embarrassing.” Lieutenant McLeod confirmed that reported the crime in July 2023 to her
counselor, who is a mandated reporter, and he did not notify the department. McLeod was asked
if he was required to notify the department in July. He said, “I guess that’s how you look at it. I’m
not under investigation at the time, so no.”

In January, Lieutenant McLeod finally reported to Chief Klug that he was being accused of the
crime after BCI contacted him and requested an interview. Despite this being an “off duty” issue,
because it affected the agency and him professionally, he believed he was required to make the
notification. Chief Klug was drafting his notice of administrative leave when McLeod met with
him to report the incident. Apparently, BCI had contacted Chief Klug prior to Lieutenant McLeod
notifying Chief Klug and made him aware of the criminal case.

The BCI investigator arranged to conduct the interview outside Minot to avoid embarrassment to
Lieutenant McLeod having to encounter other BCI Officers he had worked with over the years.
This was an act of professional courtesy. Lieutenant McLeod explained how these accusations
have impacted him personally, saying, “It’s destroyed my life. Like I said before, the truth doesn’t
matter the allegation does. And anybody who hears it just assumes that it’s true, and no matter
what a person does or says, that’s always going to be in the back of their head.”

He discussed how the accusations could have negatively impacted his co-workers and the City of
Minot. He agreed that the City was negatively affected because the public’s focus was not on the
individual accused but on the fact that a Minot Police Officer was accused of these crimes.

Lieutenant McLeod admitted a former girlfriend had previously accused him of sexual assault.
The alleged offense was reported to have occurred while he and the female were in high school
approximately 30 years prior. Valley City Police Department investigated the case, which was
ultimately closed with no charges filed. The investigation became public as a result of open records
laws in North Dakota. This has caused his co-workers to spread rumors about it, falsely accusing
him of “molesting a child.” Lieutenant McLeod expressed his displeasure with the City of Minot
releasing the Valley City investigation along with other documents. However, he agreed that the

Page 21
accusation against him by the complainant in Valley City was already out in public due to her
numerous Facebook posts and a post on the social media site Reddit.

Lieutenant McLeod was asked if he felt it was possible that the public lost trust in the Minot Police
Department because of the accusations made against him in Valley City. He said, “Of course it’s
possible. They can lose trust over anything.” He was asked if it was possible that members of the
police department lost trust in him because of the Valley City complaint. He said, “Sure.”
Lieutenant McLeod was asked if he was aware of any other Minot Police Officer who had been
accused of sexual assault against a juvenile two times. He said, “No.” I asked Lieutenant McLeod
if he was aware of any other Minot Police Officer who had been accused of sexual assault against
a juvenile once. He said, “No.”

Next Lieutenant McLeod discussed the anonymous email sent accusing him of ordering
“subordinates to lie for me to meet up with a mistress.” referring to the email sent by “truthteller.”
(attachment #10). He admitted an internal investigation was completed as a result of the
accusation. The findings of the investigation were “Not sustained. Unfounded.” Lieutenant
McLeod was asked if he directed a co-worker to lie for him. He said, “No. There was a text that
was sent that I said hey, if anybody asks, we had lunch today, and he didn’t understand what it
meant, and he never said anything about it.” Lieutenant McLeod admitted he sent the text to Cole
Strandemo because several people were supposed to have lunch together. However, only two
female employees showed up. He denied having an affair with either woman but still felt guilty
about having lunch alone with two women. Shortly after having lunch with the females, Lieutenant
McLeod spoke with his wife, and due to feeling guilty, he told her he had lunch with Cole. This
was why he sent the text to Cole.

Lieutenant McLeod was presented with the information obtained from the internal investigation.
During that time, he claimed to have sent Cole a text message to cover for him having an affair.
Lieutenant McLeod said, “I didn’t have a real affair.” He said the affair he had was by phone and
denied there was ever any physical interaction. He was questioned that if this was true, why did he
feel the need to “cover” for having lunch with the female co-workers unless one of them was whom
he was having an affair with? Lieutenant McLeod claimed neither were the woman and stated, “I
never have had an affair with anybody at work.” He denied saying in his internal investigation
interview that the reason for sending the text message to Cole was to cover for his affair. However,
he agreed that the audio-recorded interview he provided at the time would accurately represent
what he said.

While not discussed during the interview, the internal investigation was previously reviewed,
including the audio-recorded interviews (attachment #11). The line of questioning towards
Lieutenant McLeod was based on the following information obtained during the review of
Lieutenant McLeod’s previous audio-recorded interview.

“I never discussed that (affair) was going on with anybody.” (2:58)

“I never met up with her (mistress) like that” (5:14)

Page 22
 “I think I told Cole once that I had lunch with him” (6:00)

“I’m sure it (lie) would have been to cover my ass.” (7:48)

“It ended up with me almost getting a divorce. (9:30)

“I did not discuss it (the affair) freely with members of the department” (11:18)

“I don’t remember how I told then Captain Klug why I was getting a divorce. But I know I
told him I fucked up.” (11:30)

Based on this information, Lieutenant McLeod’s explanation of the incident during this interview
was not accurate. Further, Captain Plessas claimed he was told by Lieutenant McLeod the reason
he (McLeod) requested Strandemo to lie surrounded a “hockey thing.” Another statement that
conflicts with the other reasons Lieutenant McLeod has given. Based on the numerous excuses
provided, it is apparent at some point that Lieutenant McLeod has been untruthful about this
situation.

Lieutenant McLeod was asked if directing a co-worker to lie for him violated department rules and
regulations. He said, “Sure.” He was also asked if directing a subordinate officer to lie discredited
the agency or the authority of his position (Lieutenant). He said, “Sure.”

Lieutenant McLeod admitted to having two affairs. The most recent one was with “Charlsie,”
whom he met at his child’s gymnastics group. Charlsie was also married. He claimed this affair
was not physical but instead consisted of talking, sexting, and flirting. They shared photos and
videos back and forth. It lasted only a few months before his wife located pictures on his phone
which exposed the affair. Lieutenant McLeod claimed he did not know why the affair occurred,
saying that it occurred because of “bad choices.”

The first time he was unfaithful to his wife was while he was in the police academy. The woman,
later identified as “Susan,” was married and a police officer in Fargo. Lieutenant McLeod
described the affair as a “fling” lasting only one month. He was engaged to his current wife,
Kristin, at the time. She learned about the affair years later after Lieutenant McLeod admitted to it
after she asked him. As a result, he and Kristin went to marriage counseling. This was at Kristin’s
request. Lieutenant McLeod admitted, during the affairs, he had to be untruthful with his wife.

He admitted that the history of these affairs was previously exposed and made public in the
“truthteller” email that was sent to various media outlets and other police departments throughout
North Dakota.

Lieutenant McLeod was asked about his reported pornography and sex addiction. The information
on this topic was found within the Ada County Police report. In the Ada County Police report, it
was documented that he told a family member he had a former pornography and sex addiction for
which he sought treatment from a counselor. Lieutenant McLeod said, “When (Kristin) found out

Page 23
about the affair from the academy. She made me go talk to a counselor, and they did an evaluation,
and (the counselor) said no, you are not addicted to porn.”

Next, Lieutenant McLeod discussed the accusations made against him by . During this time,
he described his relationship with saying, “We’ve never liked each other, and everyone knows
we’ve never liked each other.” When asked for further detail about how he could not “like” a child,
he said, “Because she’s an evil person” and “she’s a bad person to be around. I have never liked
2

her.” He had “very little interaction” with . Describing it as “very small chunks of time” due to
and her parents not always participating in the family vacations in Butte, Montana. He said, “I
don’t have a relationship with her. I don’t know her. I’ve never had a conversation with her.”
Lieutenant McLeod said was a “spoiled brat” who had to have everything her way. He gave
examples of this behavior that occurred during various family gatherings. He said, “I don’t like
her.” I asked him if this behavior from a child was the child’s fault or the parent who allowed it to
occur. He said, “Her mom made her that way. But she’s still a bad person.” Lieutenant McLeod
continued, “She was a spoiled brat at 4. Now she’s an evil person.”

Lieutenant McLeod said he did not talk with , Kim, but had heard from his wife that
sometimes got into trouble. He confirmed as a police officer, he had investigated child sex
crimes and knew there to be some behaviors that are often consistent with children who are victims
of sex abuse. Lieutenant McLeod said some of these behaviors included being “withdrawn, mental
issues.” He admitted another typical behavior of a child who is the victim of sexual abuse is to act
out and self-harm. Lieutenant McLeod said he was aware had incidents of cutting herself. He
was asked if was displaying behaviors consistent with someone who had been abused. He said,
“Possibly.” Lieutenant McLeod discussed the fact that the accusations made against him by
claimed they were alone during the abuse. He denied ever being alone with . He was asked if
it was possible that people could be upstairs while the abuse was occurring downstairs. He said,
“Of course it’s possible,” but Lieutenant McLeod claimed people would have known if he left the
group.

Next, Lieutenant McLeod talked about the polygraph exam he failed with BCI. He admitted
polygraph exams were used during investigations conducted by the Minot Police Department. He
admitted the department had its own polygrapher while he was a detective assigned to the
Investigations Unit from 2010-2014. When he talked specifically about his failed polygraph exam
with BCI, Lieutenant McLeod said he was told about the failure by the investigator, saying, “He
claimed it wasn’t even close.” The investigator, identified as Detective Voeltz, allegedly told him
the exams were only “88%” accurate. Lieutenant McLeod confirmed his understanding of
polygraph exams was to determine deception or untruthfulness, saying, “That’s the purpose of it,
yeah.” He admitted knowing that when an officer is found to be untruthful, that information is
disclosed to States Attorney and defense attorneys. He was asked if that disclosure could affect the
officer’s ability to be an effective police officer. He said, “To testify, yeah.” Lieutenant McLeod
confirmed he was given an opportunity by the Ada County Sheriff’s Office to do another polygraph
exam, which he turned down.

Lieutenant McLeod confirmed his knowledge that other family members had accused father
of being the one who sexually abused her instead of Lieutenant McLeod. He also confirmed this

Page 24
 2

meant the family was not of the opinion that lied about being sexually abused but instead was
lying about who did the abuse, saying, “Right.” Lieutenant McLeod was unable to give an
explanation when asked about why would lie about who was abusing her if, as discussed
earlier, the reason victims of abuse made the disclosure was to get the abuse to stop. Exploring the
possibility was upset at Lieutenant McLeod, and therefore made the false accusation against
him to harm him, he claimed he never did anything that would have upset . He never yelled at
her, nor had he ever disciplined her in any way for the bad behavior she displayed. He had never
had a conversation with her.

At the end of the interview, Lieutenant McLeod said he did not abuse and was tired of being
“railroaded” and having people look at him as if he committed the sexual assault.

The interview ended at approximately 10:10 a.m.

Interview of Corbin Dickerson

On Friday, January 10, 2025, at approximately 11:56 a.m. Corbin Dickerson, an Assistant City
Attorney for the City of Minot, was interviewed. While afforded the right and opportunity,
Mr. Dickerson did not have anyone accompany him. The purpose of the interview was to learn
more about his conversation with BCI Investigators in reference to this case. Mr. Dickerson
completed a memorandum documenting his conversation with North Dakota Assistant Attorney
General Jeremy Ensrud and BCI Supervisory Special Agent Patrick Lenertz (attachment #12). The
interview was audio recorded with the knowledge and consent of Mr. Dickerson (attachment #13)

Mr. Dickerson said the city had received an open records request regarding the Lieutenant McLeod
criminal investigation. While gathering documents to respond to this request, Mr. Dickerson came
across the police reports from ADA County, Idaho, Butte / Silver Bow, Montana, and BCI. During
his review, he observed Lieutenant McLeod failed the polygraph exam given by BCI investigators
(attachment #14). This information was not previously known to him and was of concern due to
the negative implications it could have on Lieutenant McLeod’s abilities to testify in court. As an
attorney, he was aware of the problems this could create in criminal court. Mr. Dickerson said,
“Officers have to uphold honesty and integrity. The public has to trust they are gonna [sic] do their
job in every situation. They are held to a lot of times a higher standard.” The City of Minot was
also responsible for reporting the untruthfulness to the County States Attorney, commonly known
as a Brady disclosure.

To better understand the polygraph exam, Mr. Dickerson spoke with North Dakota Assistant
Attorney General Jeremy Ensrud and BCI Supervisory Special Agent Patrick Lenertz. During their
conversation, he learned who conducted the interview and why. Local BCI agents were not used
due to their prior working relationship with Lieutenant McLeod. Instead, BCI Special Agent
Voeltz conducted the polygraph examination.

Mr. Dickerson learned BCI used the “Utah 3” standard for all polygraph exams given. These exams
are “90%-94% accurate.” The accuracy of the exam is not based on the opinion of the examiner.
It is based on the science. Special Agent Lenertz explained that he agreed with the polygraph

Page 25
results for Lieutenant McLeod and that three (3) BCI Special Agents who also conducted
polygraph examinations agreed with the results. There was deception, and McLeod was lying.
Mr. Dickerson said during his conversation with the two men, he felt “they were kind of shocked
that he was still around or part of the department.” As if they believed Lieutenant McLeod was not
being truthful and understood the negative implications this could have on a police officer and an
agency.

Mr. Dickerson explained his background and his career prior to being hired with the City of Minot
and how his experience was relevant to this investigation. Mr. Dickerson was a commissioned
officer in the Air Force assigned to the Judge Advocate General Corps (JAG) as a prosecutor.
During the last three (3) years of his service, Mr. Dickerson was a Special Victims Counselor,
representing all the victims of sexual assault, rape, and domestic violence. He worked with victims
from the “very beginning” of their case. Even being at the hospital with victims after their assaults
and working with them through the court proceedings and criminal trial. Mr. Dickerson said he
had handled “several hundred cases” like this. Because of his experience, he felt confident to speak
about his review of Lieutenant McLeod’s criminal cases.

He gave an overview of his training, talking specifically about the training he received from
Forensic Psychologists who were experts on victim trauma, truthfulness, how to understand what
victims go through, as well as trauma-informed interviews. For a child, the focus is on their
memory of “big things.” They will not remember small details such as the color of a shirt.
Memories of the “big details” can be 90%-95% accurate and build credibility in a case.

During his review of the police reports, Mr. Dickerson noted the disclosures made by in this
case were significant when she described the pain she felt and the location of the incident. These
were “big things.” When described what happened to her, she did so the best way she knew
how. Because child victims often get “stuck or stunted” by the incident, child victims often use
language to describe the incident at the same vocabulary level as the age during which the abuse
occurred. description of McLeod’s penis as looking like an “anteater” was an example of
this behavior. This was consistent with how a four (4) year old would talk, despite giving the
statement as a fourteen (14) year-old. In another example, said a penis is “where babies come
out” and a vagina is for “making babies.”

Mr. Dickerson agreed the way a sexual assault victim discloses their abuse matters. They report to
law enforcement if they want the person to get in trouble. If they want help and to move on, they
disclose to a counselor or teacher. He also agreed that the disclosure, regardless of how, is due to
their desire for the abuse to stop.

Another typical behavior by victims of sexual assault or abuse is to act out, get into trouble, or
self-harm. Mr. Dickerson said these behaviors were coping mechanisms used by the victim as they
are going through pain from the abuse.

To get a criminal conviction in this type of “delayed reporting” of a sexual assault is difficult.
Today, prosecutors and the courts want evidence such as DNA despite it not always being present.
Just because there is a lack of evidence does not mean the abuse did not happen. He said, “A lot

Page 26
of times when prosecutors choose whether or not to go forward…they want to know what the
victim wants to do because court are [sic] very, very traumatic.” The experience can “revictimize”
the person and create additional trauma. In this case, said she “just wanted to focus on herself”
and did not care about getting “justice.” All of which could explain why no criminal charges were
brought against Lieutenant McLeod.

He discussed claim to have passed out or lost consciousness during the abuse. This is called
“Fight, Flight, Freeze, or you hear Fawning” and is when a victim of sexual assault blocks out the
memory of the event to help protect themselves from the event. This is a trauma response to
dissociate and can also be referred to as “condition yellow or red.” Causing the victim to “blank
out” and have memory lapses. The gaps in memory are common and expected, especially in
someone the age of .

The interview ended at approximately 12:20 p.m.

Review of Lieutenant McLeod Work Internet History

The internet history associated with Lieutenant McLeod’s secure sign-in for the City of Minot
Police Department was requested and reviewed (attachment #15). The reason for the request was
to ensure, due to the criminal accusations against Lieutenant McLeod, that no illegal material was
located on any City of Minot owned device. Minot Police Department Policy 323; Security of
Systems and Facilities provides for this action to take place. Specifically, within 323.4; Inspection
or Review.

A supervisor or the authorized designee has the express authority to inspect or review the
computer system, all temporary or permanent files, related electronic systems or devices,
and any contents thereof, whether such inspection or review is in the ordinary course of
his/her supervisory duties or based on cause.

Reasons for inspection or review may include, but are not limited to, computer system
malfunctions, problems or general computer system failure, a lawsuit against the
Department involving one of its members or a member’s duties, an alleged or suspected
violation of any department policy, a request for disclosure of data, or a need to perform or
provide a service.

The IT staff may extract, download or otherwise obtain any and all temporary or permanent
files residing or located in or on the department computer system when requested by a
supervisor or during the course of regular duties that require such information.

Paul Ulrickson, the Information Technologies (IT) Manager of the Networks and Communication
Department for the City of Minot, confirmed the information provided was specific to Lieutenant
McLeod’s internet use, which McLeod accessed through his secure login for the City of Minot
Network. Mr. Ulrickson explained internet service is provided to the City of Minot from the State

Page 27
of North Dakota. Because of this, the timeframe for the history available would be limited to what
the State of North Dakota could provide.

The internet history provided was for the timeframe of October 6, 2024 though the date they
received and processed the request, January 9, 2025. Lieutenant McLeod was found to have
accessed the website “resume-now.com” on January 8-9, 2025. This website assists with the
development of a resume (https://www.resume-now.com). This information would later be
verified during a review of his text messages, during which he confirmed that he was applying for
a job at CP Rail.

Also located were several incidents when Lieutenant McLeod’s internet history showed he
accessed “adult” category URLs with the domain name being “ts4.explicit.bing.net.” All of the
access occurred on December 27, 2024.

According to Microsoft:

Potentially explicit images and video content will now be coming from a separate single
domain, explicit.bing.net. This is invisible to the end customer, but allows for filtering of
that content by domain which makes it much easier for customers at all levels to block this
content regardless of what the SafeSearch settings might be. This makes it much easier for
filtering software to block unwanted content if SafeSearch has been turned off.

In addition, we will begin returning source URL information in the query string for images
and video content so that companies who already use this method of filtering will be able
to catch explicit content on Bing along with everything else they are already blocking for
their customers.

https://blogs.bing.com/search/June-2009/Safe-Search-Update

Based on this information, it is known Lieutenant McLeod accessed inappropriate websites from
his Minot Police Department Computer.

Review of Lieutenant McLeod Work Cell Phone Extraction

On January 14, 2025, at approximately 10:30 a.m., at the request of this investigation, City of
Minot Attorney Stephanie Stalheim collected Lieutenant McLeod’s work-issued cell phone (701-
578-8796). Due to the criminal accusations against Lieutenant McLeod, the request was to ensure
that no illegal material was located on any City of Minot-owned device. Minot Police Department
Policy 323; Security of Systems and Facilities provides for this action to take place. Specifically,
within 323.4; Inspection or Review.

BCI Supervisory Special Agent Patrick Lenertz agreed to assist by extracting the city-owned cell
phone’s contents. Special Agent Jared Olson completed the phone extraction on January 16, 2025,
and Agent Lenertz later provided the data on January 22, 2025 (attachment #16).

Page 28
1. A review of the information obtained from the cell phone data found Lieutenant McLeod
was engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate, Carmen Asham. Asham is a
Sergeant for the Minot Police Department who was assigned to the patrol unit, working under the
supervision of Lieutenant McLeod. Between November 22, 2024, and January 14, 2025,
Lieutenant McLeod and Sergeant Asham exchanged approximately 2,111 text
messages. Some of the text messages discussing their relationship included the following:

November 22, 2024

McLeod: “A bit messed up. My life is crumbling around me, and I keep finding myself
thinking of you.” 6:17:20 PM.

McLeod: “Just reading through the report. Bambi said that he feels I am “touchy feely”
with you.” 7:55:11 PM.

November 25, 2024

Asham: “Did you get grief at home?” 4:55:24 PM

McLeod: “Surprisingly no. She knows I havent talked to Charlsie in like 5 years. And
asked something about if I am touchy with you. I said hell no. Bambi has never seen me
even near you.” 5:00:01 PM

McLeod: “Think its better to avoid each other?” 9:11:13 PM

Asham: “Not entirely.” 9:23:53 PM

McLeod: “Don’t want you to be uncomfortable.” 9:27:15 PM

Asham: “I know.” 9:29:48 PM

McLeod: “Hate not seeing each other though.” 9:31:26 PM

Asham: ““Me too” Oh thanks, that’s nice…” 10:05:27 PM

December 11, 2024

McLeod: “Really have missed seeing you.” 3:53:18 PM

Asham: “It’s nice.” 4:01:21 PM

McLeod: “Spaced it out, but I grabbed coffee.” 4:05:20 PM

Asham: “I got it Thank you.” 4:19:55 PM

McLeod: “Some pretty lady just walked past my office.” 7:45:04 PM

Page 29
 Asham: “Hmm Weird.” 7:46:12 PM

McLeod: “Freak you out a bit if I said I wanted to be alone with you?” 9:25:46 PM

Asham: “I wouldn’t say that it freaks me out.” 9:30:48 PM

December 12, 2024

McLeod: “Unrelated to anything, but I may have had a dream where I was smooching on
your neck and ears…” 6:00:00 PM

December 13, 2024

McLeod: “Gonna [sic] stop by when you’re done? Or in a dark hallway by chance.”
4:19:25 PM

McLeod: “Can I say that I am quite disappointed I didn’t get to spend time with you the
past 2 days.” 9:11:04 PM

McLeod: “You really did look very wow when you stopped by. Wasn’t exaggerating.”
10:51:38 PM

December 17, 2024

McLeod: “Is it Ok if I miss you a little.” 7:59:16 PM

December 18, 2024

McLeod: “Was wondering if there was a way to see you tonight, but not sure there is.”
9:07:23 PM

December 19, 2024

McLeod: “Ill see you in the morning. Hope you feel better. Would rub your back and
neck if I could.”11:28:26 PM

December 22, 2024

McLeod: “By chance you need to run errands in the morning?” 7:54:37 PM

Asham: “I’ll probably need to go get groceries.” 7:59:06 PM

McLeod: “I want to see you if there is a way to bump into you donewhere [sic].” 8:21:19
PM

McLeod: “May you’ll be thirsty.” 8:22:10 PM

Asham: “I guess we’ll see.” 8:40:49 PM

December 23, 2024

McLeod: “I get that you likely don’t understand, but I really miss you today.” 7:20:13 PM

Page 30
December 26, 2024
McLeod: “When youre [sic] looking at cookies I can look at your butt and still appear to
be paying attention.” 5:49:54

McLeod: “If it wasn’t obvious, I still think its quite nice.” 6:12:41 PM

McLeod: “And don’t tell anyone I said so, but you looked quite good today.” 11:14:41
PM

December 28, 2024

McLeod: “Hey pretty lady.” 2:18:39 PM

December 29, 2024

McLeod: “Fuuuck [sic], you’re looking good.” 1:33:10 PM

McLeod: “Is it bad that I wanted to spend more time with you and not leave?” 2:23:39
PM

January 3, 2025
McLeod: “By the way, you look very good today.” 3:04:57 PM

McLeod: “Probably need to see you once or twice more before I leave.” 3:42:33 PM

McLeod: “Did I mention you looking rather hot?” 6:22:30 PM

McLeod: “Still think about smootchin [sic] on your neck.” 6:47:38 PM

January 5, 2025
McLeod: “You don’t bug me. I have the phone with when I can be safe.” 7:17:37 PM

January 8, 2025
McLeod: “You know what it means for us when I leave, right?” 6:39:04 PM

McLeod: “I’m just gonna [sic] say it because, whatever. I cannot even fathom saying
goodbye to you and not being able to see you anymore. It makes me shake.” 9:01:29 PM

January 13, 2025

McLeod: “I know you think I’m a potato, but you look especially pretty today.” 8:07:35
PM

2. Lieutenant McLeod also shared information with Sergeant Asham that should not have
been shared between a supervisor and a subordinate. This included information to prevent Sergeant
Asham from getting in trouble at work, his feelings about other employees and the agency,
information about other employees discipline, and information about specialty assignments she

Page 31
had applied for. During one exchange on November 22, 2024, evidence was located that showed
Lieutenant McLeod had improperly provided Sergeant Asham with a copy of an internal report
and guided her on how to avoid others finding out what he did.

McLeod: “Delete that file and the email.” 8:59:13 PM

Asham: “OK.” 9:01:27 PM

Asham: “Did you tell them you sent it to me or are they checking people’s email?” 9:14:49
PM

McLeod: “Dale knew that it was sent to Shawn and I. Ashley got put on AL for doing it.”
9:15:32 PM

Asham: “Wegner called me to tell me to delete it.” 9:16:19 PM

McLeod: “Really?” 9:16:37 PM

Asham: “Yes.” 9:16:40 PM

McLeod: “WTF.” 9:16:51 PM

Asham: “I guess they’re having IT look at who received it.” 9:17:24 PM

McLeod: “He knew I sent it?” 9:22:06 PM

Asham: “Don’t know He didn’t say and I didn’t tell.” 9:22:37 PM

McLeod: “But he knew you received it.” 9:44:39 PM

Asham: “Sounded like it He said they were calling everyone who got it to make sure they
knew to delete it.” 9:45:56 PM

McLeod: “Great.” 9:46:22 PM

3. During another exchange, Lieutenant McLeod and Sergeant Asham discussed the open
position within the Investigations Unit and later the City’s plan to replace Chief Klug.

December 10, 2024

McLeod: “And nobody has put in for Greg’s spot yet. You should probably get that in.”
4:28:42 PM

Asham: “Alright.” 4:32:44 PM

December 12, 2024

McLeod: “Sounds like you are the only one to put in for det by the way.” 5:38:12 PM

Page 32
December 13, 2024
McLeod: “You didn’t hear it from me, but congratulations.” 2:58:45 PM

January 6, 2025
McLeod: “Wanna know?” 10:01:09 PM

Asham: “Sure.” 10:03:45 PM

McLeod: “Mutual separation External Interim chief Dispatch being moved from under
PD.” 10:07:27 PM

January 13, 2025

McLeod: “Lisa Jundt turned in her resignation of [sic] Friday.” 4:10:29 PM

4. Lieutenant McLeod regularly expressed his negative feelings about other employees,
supervisors and the agency.

December 26, 2024

McLeod: “Apparently Justin is here. Just humped my leg for a while.” 3:07:39 PM

December 29, 2024

McLeod: “I should probably avoid Shaide tomorrow.” 10:59:46

McLeod: “Fuckin [sic] male version of Somerville.” 11:01:49 PM

December 31, 2024

McLeod: “This fucking place. City manager making us do his bullshit.” 4:31:48 PM

January 2, 2025
McLeod: “Maybe its partly because I think he is a knob, but I find it off-putting that Moss
keeps posting about Sgt McBride passing. He didn’t even know him.” 8:57:11 PM

January 4, 2025
McLeod: “Am I a dick for kinda hoping Rock gets fired?” 3:40:41 PM

January 14, 2025

McLeod: “Was obvious when Fatboy claimed he was reviewing videos but then we found
like 5 calls where Hall was out of control, and he had supposedly watched them.” 4:08:18
PM

5. Lieutenant McLeod often discussed his belief that he will be fired from the Minot Police
Department due to the allegations made against him by and his failure of the polygraph
examination administered by BCI.

Page 33
November 22, 2024
McLeod: “With the rest of it coming out it looks bad. People always assume the worst.
Cant [sic] shake the feeling they will decide to fire me.” 5:07:19 PM

Asham: “I don’t think they would have legal grounds to if the criminal complaint wasn’t
substantiated. A different agency did the investigation.” 5:15:39 PM

McLeod: “It’s the polygraph. If they do, I think I can go after them because I would be
getting discipline for the same incident I was already cleared on. Its [sic] just the whole
total humiliation and degradation.” 5:18:04 PM

December 30, 2024

McLeod: “Feeling a ton of anxiety today.” 3:26:06 PM

McLeod: “I think mostly the drama here. Feeling more and more that the manager has
me pegged to be the sacrificial lamb in this whole which [sic] hunt.” 3:35:00 PM

January 8, 2025
McLeod: “So if I lose my job, is it going to bother you, or will you feel relieved?” 6:00:09
PM

Asham: “It will bother me.” 6:07:26 PM

Asham: “Who threw you under the bus in the report and said you failed a polygraph?”
6:07:53 PM

McLeod: “BCI.” 6:08:07

McLeod: “Fuller had his cronies at “the Dakotan” do a records request.” 6:08:47 PM

McLeod: “Just so you know, I have started looking around for what is available.” 6:20:07
PM

January 14, 2025

McLeod: “Well, I just submitted an application…” 2:49:33 PM

Asham: “Oh my You’re pretty certain on this Where did you apply?” 2:51:57 PM

McLeod: “I don’t see any other outcome Carmen. His agenda was very clear CPRail.”
2:52:49 PM

McLeod: “Even if they don’t, can I stay? There has been so much shit talked about me. I
see the way people are towards me.” 2:55:41 PM

Page 34
Interview with Carmen Asham

On Tuesday, February 11, 2025 at approximately 3:00 p.m., Carmen Asham, a Sergeant for the
City of Minot Police Department, was interviewed virtually through Microsoft Teams. While
afforded the right and opportunity, Sergeant Asham had no one accompany her to the interview.
Sergeant Asham was given prior notice to attend the interview and completed the Minot Police
Department “Notice of Internal Investigation / Garrity Advisement.” (attachment #17). The
interview was recorded with her knowledge per Minot Police Department Policy 1005; Personnel
Complaints (attachment #18).

Sergeant Asham referred to Lieutenant McLeod as “her best work friend.” She was aware that he
had feelings for her that went “beyond friendship,” but she did not feel the same way towards him.
Reluctantly, Sergeant Asham admitted that their friendship “may have” crossed a line and become
physical. She estimated this occurred approximately 1 to 2 years earlier, stating that she tried to
“put that behind me.” According to her, Lieutenant McLeod initiated the physical relationship,
which lasted a few months. The affair was short-lived. During that time, they kissed, and McLeod
touched her private areas under her clothing. While she kissed him back, she did not touch him in
any private areas. She described this period as a mistake.

At the time of the physical relationship, Asham was a Master Officer, and McLeod was a
Lieutenant. Most recently, he had been her direct supervisor while she served as a Sergeant in
patrol. She did not feel pressured to engage in the inappropriate relationship since it was
consensual. During their friendship, Lieutenant McLeod provided Sergeant Asham with
information she would not have otherwise accessed. When their relationship became physical, it
only occurred at the police department, in areas such as hallways and the crime lab. They never
met outside of work.

She confirmed Lieutenant McLeod often referred to his wife as the “roommate” during their
conversations and that he told Asham she did not come up during Lieutenant McLeod’s interview.

January 11, 2025

Asham: “How are you?” 3:21:42 PM

McLeod: “Shitty Furious.” 3:22:14 PM

McLeod: “You?” 3:22:17 PM

Asham: “Same as usual Got a headache and tired.” 3:26:00 PM

Asham: “Furious about what?” 3:26:06 PM

McLeod: “My “interview”.” 3:40:34 PM

Asham: “Sorry.” 3:42:28 PM

Page 35
 McLeod”. “At least you never came up.” 3:56:13 PM

Several text message conversations between Sergeant Asham and Lieutenant McLeod were
located that appeared to show McLeod had a desire to further their relationship. Those messages
included:

November 27, 2024

McLeod: “You look very nice today.” 7:59:34 PM

Asham: “Thanks.” 8:00:43 PM

McLeod: “So multiple choice guess.. Are you scared to say that miss it / don’t like when
we can’t talk or see each other, or does it not matter to you?” 8:07:33 PM

McLeod: “Is it really that bad to answer me?” 9:10:10 PM

Asham: “Was occupied.” 9:31:07 PM

McLeod: “Ok…” 9:56:48 PM

McLeod: “I really do get that things get busy. But it took 5 seconds to say you were busy
when you could have just answered me. Maybe its selfish, but just once I would like to see
you say something kind of nice. That I mean more than just a convenience.” 10:48:27 PM

Asham: “Sorry I’m not nice to you but I won’t talk about that stiff with you. You know
this.” 11:19:46 PM

McLeod: “Quit turning things around on me. I wasn’t asking for much and you know it.”
11:19:46 PM

Asham: “Why are you asking at all? Just stop.” 11:35:15 PM

December 5, 2024
McLeod: “I’m sick of the cycle, but I don’t know that I can do this.” 6:10:44 PM

Asham: “So what do we do?” 6:18:10 PM

McLeod: “I really don’t know Carmen. I’m a fucking wreck.” 6:32:33 PM

Asham: “I don’t know either.” 6:56:28 PM

McLeod: “This is kinda my point. It shouldn’t be this hard. We drive each other nuts, but
cutting loose had never worked.” 7:23:25 PM

McLeod: “I don’t want you out of my life. I can’t.” 8:56:15 PM

Page 36
 Asham: “So what do we do?” 9:21:05 PM

McLeod: “What do you want?” 9:27:07 PM

Asham: “If [sic] like things to be the way they have the past couple months.” 9:40:21 PM

McLeod: “I know you do.” 9:41:09 PM

McLeod: “I know it doesn’t matter, but that’s very hard on me.” 10:41:48 PM

Asham: “I know it is.” 10:52:55 PM

McLeod: “Being together makes us happy, but creates stress…hence dysfunction.”

11:01:01 PM

December 6, 2024
McLeod: “Sorry I don’t know what to do about us.” 9:20:38 PM

December 10, 2024

McLeod: “It’s OK for you to say hi sometimes.” 3:46:55 PM

Asham: “Wasn’t sure.” 3:48:11 PM

Asham: “Hi.” 3:48:13 PM

McLeod: “First time I’ve seen you in 2 weeks.” 5:23:15 PM

Asham: “Was nice to see you.” 5:30:06 PM

McLeod: “Was nice to see you.” 5:35:40 PM

McLeod: “You asked me several times what we should do. You don’t want me to answer
that, so why do you ask?” 7:37:17 PM

Asham: “What do you mean I don’t want you to answer? I was just asking for input. If
you don’t have an answer you don’t have one.” 7:43:43 PM

McLeod: “I mean you don’t want to hear my answer.” 7:45:45 PM

McLeod: “I agree that we have a great time together and I enjoy hanging out. I also think
it was awesome when we played too. Some might say its selfish, and maybe it is. We are
attracted to each other, and that hasn’t really changed over the years.” 8:00:57 PM

Page 37
 Asham: “But we have [sic] smarter than that. Especially with the scrutiny this place is
facing.” 8:13:55 PM

McLeod: “For the most part we have been careful. I just don’t want to hold back I feel
[sic].” 8:16:39 PM

McLeod: “You won’t even be on patrol much longer.” 8:24:01 PM

McLeod: “You even realize what if felt like to see you today?” 9:10:00 PM

Asham: “No.” 9:15:22 PM

McLeod: “Hard to explain, but very giddy and missed your eyes.” 9:17:46 PM

Asham: “It made me kinda [sic] sad when you took the long way to the lobby last week to
avoid me.” 9:20:44 PM

McLeod: “Me too.” 9:28:28 PM

McLeod: “For what its worth, I care about you more than you know and not talking makes
me feel like shit.” 10:25:41 PM

Asham: “I know.” 10:34:49 PM

December 21, 2024

McLeod: “Hey pretty lady.” 2:10:15 PM

McLeod: “Not looking to re-live that chunk of time, but you realize the whole “what do
we do” question was never answered?” 10:38:57 PM

Asham: “Pretty sure no one had an answer.” 10:56:48 PM

Sergeant Asham confirmed during their text exchanges that Lieutenant McLeod was expressing
his desire to rekindle their physical relationship. She admitted to ignoring or avoiding his question,
“What should we do?” because she had previously told him on several occasions that she did not
want any relationship beyond friendship. She was not interested in becoming physical with him
again and did not want to “cross that line” again. After rejecting him, Sergeant Asham mentioned
that she would feel bad because she valued him as a friend. However, she also found it frustrating
to have to continually bring him back to reality by reiterating that she did not share his feelings,
saying, “I kind of got tired of telling him the same response.”

At times, due to McLeod’s inability to honor her request to maintain an appropriate level of
friendship, she would communicate that they could only discuss work-related issues and nothing
personal. However, this arrangement would eventually break down, and they would “fall back”

Page 38
into their usual pattern of texting and talking again. The text message exchange between Lieutenant
McLeod and Sergeant Asham supports her statements.

December 4, 2025
McLeod: “You’re OK with avoiding each other and not talking?” 4:36:54 PM

Asham: “No but I really don’t know what else to do.” 4:54:35 PM

McLeod: “K” 4:57:28 PM

McLeod: “Since it’s work related; If you don’t get detectives or Rock doesn’t get fired.
You’ll get bumped to nights due to seniority.” 6:56:29 PM

Asham: “Ya kinda figured.” 7:00:30 PM

McLeod: “I know that normally I eat crow and apologize for everything. I am not going
to do that, and I would imagine that rubs you wrong. If not talking is what you want then
I guess I will have to accept it. I am the way I am and its not changing, and no, I am not
trying to change you.” 7:29:57 PM

Asham: “I don’t expect anything. Not talking at all is not what I wanted but I guess that’s
what it’s come to.” 8:48:20 PM

McLeod: “If neither of is [sic] want it, why do we keep ending up here?” 8:56:14 PM

Asham: “Because one person wants to move on from the past and one doesn’t.” 9:36:04
PM

McLeod: “Fine. You win. Glad its so easy for you.” 9:46:26 PM

McLeod: “Its not about moving on or not moving on. There is something about you that
I just always want in my life. When you’re not pissing me off, I want to be around you all
of the time. We have always had a weird relationship and have connected differently than
friends.” 10:48:26 PM

Asham: “I’d say were pretty dysfunctional.” 11:18:48 PM

McLeod: “When were we ever functional?” 11:23:12 PM

Asham: “Don’t think we ever were.” 11:29:20 PM

McLeod: “Still managed alot [sic] of years.” 11:31:38 PM

Asham: “Ya.” 11:40:03 PM

Page 39
When asked if Lieutenant McLeod’s actions towards her constituted sexual harassment, Sergeant
Asham said, “I suppose it could be construed as that,” but she did not feel like it at the time but
said, “Yeah. I probably could have gone that route.” She described her friendship with Lieutenant
McLeod as being important to her. He was someone with whom she had things in common outside
of work. She could also vent to him about frustrations while on shift. He was a safe space for her.
She agreed that their friendship level did not require her to be subjected to his repeated solicitations
for a physical relationship, saying, “No. I know that it’s not.” Sergeant Asham admitted knowing
what resources were available to her to get Lieutenant McLeod to stop his unwanted behavior.

The interview ended at approximately 3:40 p.m.

Conclusion

This internal investigation sought to determine whether Lieutenant McLeod’s role as a suspect in
two criminal investigations violated any department rules or regulations. It also aimed to assess
whether these allegations had a negative impact on the city and the police department.

Lieutenant McLeod acknowledged that internal investigations into reported or suspected

misconduct by police officers are essential for ensuring that the agency hires appropriate personnel
and maintains public trust. He stated:

Hiring professional police officers to do the job. Knowing when they’ve done something
wrong and trying to fix it.

He acknowledged that addressing issues directly and maintaining clear, up-to-date policies, rules,
and regulations are crucial factors for a police department to operate as a professional agency.
When internal investigations resulted in the removal of problematic officers, morale within the
department improved, as no one wanted to work alongside them.

In this case, Lieutenant McLeod was accused of sexually assaulting in Butte, Montana,
and was also alleged to have sexually abused her in Ada County, Idaho. Both agencies conducted
investigations; however, no criminal charges were filed against Lieutenant McLeod.

He was not charged with committing a crime.

UNTRUTHFULNESS

Evidence has been identified indicating that Lieutenant McLeod was dishonest on multiple
occasions. In addition to failing a polygraph exam, he admitted to lying to his wife while engaged
in several extramarital affairs. Some of these lies involved other members of the police department.
A review of a prior internal investigation revealed that Lieutenant McLeod asked a co-worker to
lie for him to cover up one of his affairs. He acknowledged the negative impact of his actions,

Page 40
admitting they violated department rules and regulations. He also recognized that directing a
subordinate officer to lie undermined the integrity of the agency and his authority as a Lieutenant.

During the interview for this investigation, Lieutenant McLeod was also untruthful. He claimed to
have had only two affairs—one while at the academy and another involving a woman named
Charlsie. He denied ever having an affair with a co-worker; however, evidence from text messages
and information obtained from Sergeant Asham indicated that he was, in fact, engaged in an
inappropriate relationship with Asham.

Lieutenant McLeod’s dishonesty and his affair with a subordinate officer are violations of the City
of Minot’s Rules and Regulations. His repeated lies adversely affect his effectiveness as an officer
and also impact the agency and the City of Minot. This situation necessitates a Brady disclosure
to the Ward County State’s Attorney due to Lieutenant McLeod’s documented untruthfulness.

Lieutenant McLeod has sustained violations of the City of Minot Police Department Policy,
Rules, and Regulations (attachment #19) including:

Policy 322; Standards of Conduct

322.3.2: Supervisor Responsibilities

(c) Directing a subordinate to violate a policy or directive, acquiesce to such a
violation, or are indifferent to any such violation by a subordinate.

322.5.1: Laws, Rules and Orders

(a) Violation of, or ordering or instructing a subordinate to violate any policy,
procedure, rule, order, directive, requirement or failure to follow instructions contained in
department or City manuals.

(b) Disobedience of any legal directive or order issued by any department member of
a higher rank.

(c) Violation of federal, state, local or administrative laws, rules or regulations.

322.5.8: Performance
(a) Failure to disclose or misrepresenting material facts, or making any false or
misleading statement on any application, examination form, or other official document,
report or form, or during the course of any work-related investigation.

(b) The falsification of any work-related records, making misleading entries or

statements with the intent to deceive or the willful and unauthorized removal, alteration,
destruction and/or mutilation of any department record, public record, book, paper or
document.

(c) Failure to participate in an investigation, or giving false or misleading statements,

or misrepresenting or omitting material information to a supervisor or other person in a

Page 41
 position of authority, in connection with any investigation or in the reporting of any
department-related business.

(d) Being untruthful or knowingly making false, misleading or malicious statements that
are reasonably calculated to harm the reputation, authority or official standing of this
department or its members.

(i) Any act on duty or off duty that brings discredit to this department.

322.5.9: Conduct
(h) Criminal, dishonest, or disgraceful conduct, whether on or off duty, that adversely
affects the member’s relationship with this department.

(m) Any other on or off duty conduct which any member knows or reasonably should
know is unbecoming a member of this department, is contrary to good order, efficiency or
morale, or tends to reflect unfavorably upon this department or its members.

IMPROPER DISCLOSURES

While reviewing Lieutenant McLeod’s text messages, it was revealed that, in addition to his
inappropriate relationship with Sergeant Asham, he violated department rules by making
disparaging remarks about other members of the agency and sharing confidential information with
a subordinate officer. Sergeant Asham corroborated these findings during her interview.

McLeod: “Delete that file and the email.”

Asham: “OK.”

Asham: “Did you tell them you sent it to me or are they checking people’s email?”

McLeod: “Dale knew that it was sent to Shawn and I. Ashley got put on AL for doing it.”

McLeod: “Apparently Justin is here. Just humped my leg for a while.”

McLeod: “I should probably avoid Shaide tomorrow.” “Fuckin [sic] male version of
Somerville.”

McLeod: “This fucking place. City manager making us do his bullshit.”

McLeod: “Maybe it’s partly because I think he is a knob, but I find it off-putting that Moss
keeps posting about Sgt McBride passing. He didn’t even know him.”

McLeod: “Am I a dick for kinda hoping Rock gets fired?”

Page 42
 McLeod: “Was obvious when Fatboy claimed he was reviewing videos but then we found
like 5 calls where Hall was out of control, and he had supposedly watched them.”

McLeod: “And nobody has put in for Greg’s spot yet. You should probably get that in.”

McLeod: “Sounds like you are the only one to put in for it, by the way.”

McLeod: “You didn’t hear it from me, but congratulations.”

McLeod: “Mutual separation External Interim chief Dispatch being moved from under
PD.”

McLeod: “Lisa Jundt turned in her resignation of [sic] Friday.”

Based on this information, Lieutenant McLeod has sustained violations the City of Minot
Police Department Policy, Rules, and Regulations including:

Policy 322; Standards of Conduct

322.3.2: Supervisor Responsibilities

(b) Failure to promptly and fully report any known misconduct of a member to his/her
immediate supervisor or to document such misconduct appropriately or as required by
policy

(c) Directing a subordinate to violate a policy or directive, acquiesce to such a

violation, or are indifferent to any such violation by a subordinate.

(d) The unequal exercise of authority on the part of a supervisor toward any member
for malicious or other improper purpose.

322.5.2: Laws, Rules and Orders

(j) Violation of, or ordering or instructing a subordinate to violate any policy,
procedure, rule, order, directive, requirement or failure to follow instructions contained in
department or City manuals.

(k) Disobedience of any legal directive or order issued by any department member of
a higher rank.

(l) Violation of federal, state, local or administrative laws, rules or regulations.

322.5.6: Unauthorized Access, Disclosure or Use

(a) Unauthorized and inappropriate intentional release of confidential or protected
information, materials, data, forms or reports obtained as a result of the member’s position
with this department.

Page 43
 (b) Disclosing to any unauthorized person any active investigation information.

322.5.8: Performance
(e) Disparaging remarks or conduct concerning duly constituted authority to the extent
that such conduct disrupts the efficiency of this department or subverts the good order,
efficiency and discipline of this department or that would tend to discredit any of its
members.

322.5.9: Conduct
(f) Discourteous, disrespectful or discriminatory treatment of any member of the
public or any member of this department or the City.

(h) Criminal, dishonest, or disgraceful conduct, whether on or off duty, that adversely
affects the member’s relationship with this department.

(m) Any other on or off duty conduct which any member knows or reasonably should
know is unbecoming a member of this department, is contrary to good order, efficiency or
morale, or tends to reflect unfavorably upon this department or its members.

INAPPROPRIATE WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR

During the review of Lieutenant McLeod’s internet history associated with his city network access,
it was discovered that he had accessed inappropriate “explicit” websites and images, which is a
violation of Department rules and regulations.

Additionally, his inappropriate relationship with Sergeant Asham, along with their on-duty
communications, also violates department rules and regulations. Some text messages revealed that
Sergeant Asham lacked confidence in her abilities as a police officer and supervisor, suggesting
that she was suffering from imposter syndrome. These messages indicated that she sometimes felt
insecure about her physical appearance. Lieutenant McLeod developed a friendship with her,
providing both professional and personal support and reassurance. However, he continually
pursued Sergeant Asham, repeatedly trying to engage her in a physical relationship. His failure to
respect her wishes for the relationship to remain platonic revealed his true intentions.

For example, during a text exchange, after Sergeant Asham reiterated her desire to keep their
relationship strictly platonic, Lieutenant McLeod warned her that if she did not secure the open
detective position—which he had previously helped her pursue—she would be forced onto a less
desirable shift. This served as a subtle reminder of the help and assistance he was providing her..

December 4, 2025
McLeod: “Since it’s work related; If you don’t get detectives or Rock doesn’t get fired.
You’ll get bumped to nights due to seniority.” 6:56:29 PM

Asham: “Ya kinda figured.” 7:00:30 PM

Page 44
Based on this information, Lieutenant McLeod has sustained violations the City of Minot
Police Department Policy, Rules, and Regulations including:

Policy 316; Discriminatory Harassment

316.1: Policy
The Minot Police Department is an equal opportunity employer and is committed to
creating and maintaining a work environment that is free of all forms of discriminatory
harassment, including sexual harassment and retaliation. The Department will not tolerate
discrimination against members in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, fringe
benefits, and other privileges of employment. The Department will take preventive and
corrective action to address any behavior that violates this policy or the rights and
privileges it is designed to protect.

The nondiscrimination policies of the Department may be more comprehensive than state
or federal law. Conduct that violates this policy may or may not violate state or federal law
but still could subject a member to discipline.

Policy 322; Standards of Conduct

322.3.2: Supervisor Responsibilities

(d) The unequal exercise of authority on the part of a supervisor toward any member
for malicious or other improper purpose.

322.5.3: Laws, Rules and Orders

(m) Disobedience of any legal directive or order issued by any department member of
a higher rank.

(n) Violation of federal, state, local or administrative laws, rules or regulations.

322.5.4: Relationships
(a) Unwelcome solicitation of a personal or sexual relationship while on-duty or
through the use of one’s official capacity.

(b) Engaging in on-duty sexual activity including, but not limited to, sexual
intercourse, excessive displays of public affection or other sexual contact.

322.5.8: Performance
(i) Any act on duty or off duty that brings discredit to this department.

322.5.9: Conduct
(f) Discourteous, disrespectful or discriminatory treatment of any member of the
public or any member of this department or the City.

Page 45
 (h) Criminal, dishonest, or disgraceful conduct, whether on or off duty, that adversely
affects the member’s relationship with this department.

(m) Any other on or off duty conduct which any member knows or reasonably should
know is unbecoming a member of this department, is contrary to good order, efficiency or
morale, or tends to reflect unfavorably upon this department or its members.

Policy 323; Security of Systems and Facilities

323.5.3: Internet Use

Internet access provided by or through the Department shall be strictly limited to Department-
related activities. Internet sites containing information that is not appropriate or applicable to
department use and which shall not be intentionally accessed include, but are not limited to, adult
forums, pornography, gambling, chat rooms and similar or related Internet sites. Certain
exceptions may be permitted with the express approval of a supervisor as a function of a member’s
assignment.

Downloaded information shall be limited to messages, mail and data files.

Policy 701; Personal Communication Devices

701.6: Use of PCD

(b) A PCD may not be used to conduct personal business while on-duty, except for
brief personal communications (e.g., informing family of extended hours). Members shall
endeavor to limit their use of PCDs to authorized break times, unless an emergency exists.

(f) Using PCDs to harass, threaten, coerce or otherwise engage in inappropriate

conduct with any third party is prohibited. Any member having knowledge of such conduct
shall promptly notify a supervisor.

Based on the information obtained, Lieutenant McLeod has sustained violations of the City
of Minot Employee Policy Manual, specifically Chapter 5; Harassment (attachment #20).

HARASSMENT POLICY:

Statement of Philosophy: It is the policy of the City to provide a positive work environment that
is free of discrimination, sexual and all other forms or harassment. This policy is a measure to
ensure that all employees will enjoy a safe work place free from unreasonable interference,
intimidation, hostility, or offensive behavior on the part of the council, department heads,
supervisors, co-workers or visitors. All employees are responsible for compliance with this
guideline, as the City of Minot will not tolerate unlawful discrimination or harassment.

A. It is the City policy that sexual and other unlawful harassment of its employees in any form is
prohibited and that all employees shall be treated with respect. Actions, words, jokes or comments

Page 46
based on an individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation or any
other legally protected characteristic shall not be tolerated.

B. Employees have the right, under Section 703 of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of
1964, to work in an environment that is free of conduct that can be considered sexually harassing
or abusive. Any employee who engages in, who perpetuates or condones sexual or other unlawful
harassment shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

C. The City, in recognizing its obligation to maintain a place of employment that is free of
harassing, abusive, or disruptive conduct shall take positive and prompt corrective action where
necessary in accordance with this policy.

UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT DEFINED:

Sexual harassment is a serious offense and is a form of employee misconduct. Sexual harassment
does not refer to the occasional non-sexual compliment, but to behavior of a sexual nature that is
not welcome, is personally offensive and impairs an employee’s work effectiveness or is behavior
that creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. The following are types of
conduct an example of harassment, which are prohibited. These examples do not necessarily
represent all ways in which sexual harassment may occur and are not intended to limit the
definition of sexual harassment.

A. Verbal comments and gestures of a sexual nature including any suggestive remarks, pictures,
jokes and catcalls.

B. Explicit or implicit promises of career advancement or preferential treatment in return for sexual
favors. Such promises or preferential treatment may include but are not limited to: hiring,
promotion, training opportunities, work schedule, leave approval, performance evaluations and
pay increases.

DISCIPLINE:

An employee who is found to have engaged in sexual, workplace or unlawful harassment or

retaliation, or who is found to have knowingly condoned, encouraged, or perpetuated an act or acts
of sexual, workplace, or unlawful harassment or retaliation, shall be subject to disciplinary action:
including but not limited to, suspension, loss of salary increment, demotion and termination.

DEFINITIONS:

Sexual harassment is defined as any verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature such as, but not
limited to, sex-oriented remarks or jokes, pressures or demands for sexual favors, implied or overt
promises or threats, or any unwelcome conduct with sexual or demeaning overtones when:

• Submission to or rejection of such conduct is made, explicitly or implicitly, as a term or condition

of employment or advancement;

Page 47
• Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for employment
decisions affecting such individual; or

• Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonable interfering with an individual’s work
performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or sexually offensive working environment.

NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE AGENCY

Evidence gathered during this investigation indicates that Lieutenant McLeod’s involvement in
criminal cases in Idaho and Montana, combined with the public knowledge of his previous rape
accusation in Valley City, multiple extramarital affairs, documented dishonesty, and failed
polygraph exam, have undermined his effectiveness as a supervisor and police officer. These
ongoing allegations of inappropriate behavior negatively impact the department and the morale of
fellow officers, eroding public trust in the Minot Police Department and law enforcement as a
whole.

Lieutenant McLeod acknowledged the potential loss of public trust when asked about the
implications of the Valley City accusations. He stated, “Of course it’s possible. They can lose trust
over anything.” When asked if members of the police department might have lost trust in him due
to the Valley City complaint, he responded, “Sure.”

Sergeant Johnson supported this notion, stating that his actions as a Minot Police Officer reflect
not just on himself but on the entire department and the City of Minot. He said, “If I do something
stupid, it affects everybody that wears a uniform. Because the public doesn’t trust us now because
one of us did, you know.”

Chief Klug also addressed this issue, indicating that the repeated complaints against Lieutenant
McLeod—including those stemming from the Valley City investigation, the emailed complaint
from the “truthteller,” and the public knowledge of McLeod’s affairs, as well as recent allegations
from his —have negatively affected the department. He mentioned, “I think it does. I think
anything that happens from a standpoint of what it looks like.” Chief Klug agreed that this could
also hinder Lieutenant McLeod’s ability to lead within the agency.

An additional example of Lieutenant McLeod’s ineffectiveness as a police officer is his negative

feelings toward the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) and its investigators.
The Minot Police Department regularly collaborates with BCI on criminal cases, with McLeod
stating they work together “daily.” His adverse feelings could negatively affect cooperation
between the two agencies and, consequently, the criminal investigations.

When asked if he viewed BCI as a professional agency, Lieutenant McLeod replied, “I used to
think so,” but he had changed his opinion due to “their behavior over the past year.” When
questioned about BCI officers being good investigators, he responded, “Well, they screwed me
over and then talked crap about me around the state for the past year, so my opinion has changed.”
He was also asked if, setting his incident aside, he held a different opinion of BCI investigators;
he replied, “My opinion right now is no,” and added, “I don’t trust them.”

Page 48
Evidence obtained during the investigation suggests that Lieutenant McLeod has struggled to
control his sexual impulses. Beyond the allegations in Montana and Idaho, he has a history of
problematic behavior related to sexual misconduct, including:

- Multiple extramarital affairs

- Multiple allegations of sexual misconduct
- Multiple acts of dishonesty
- Sexual harassment in the workplace

Sergeant Johnson shared his views during his interview, stating that when considering the overall
situation—having the Valley City investigation, engaging in an affair, directing subordinates to lie
for him, and now facing an allegation from —it appears that there is a pattern of sexual
misconduct. Johnson expressed that he did not believe Lieutenant McLeod had “sound moral
character,” which he deemed necessary to be a police officer.

The Minot Police Department Policy Manual includes a message from Chief Klug, discussing Law
Enforcement Ethics and the Minot Police Department Mission Statement. These documents
emphasize the importance of being ethical, trustworthy, and honest, and being someone, the public
can trust and take pride in, both professionally and personally. Lieutenant McLeod’s personal and
professional actions stand in stark contrast to the values established by the City of Minot, its Police
Department, and the broader law enforcement profession.

CHIEF’S MESSAGE

The Minot Police Department will engage the citizens and visitors in the City of Minot
with respect and provide professional police service to all. Police officers have a
challenging role in the community and the standards of conduct reflect the importance
of fairness, sound judgment, and unfaltering integrity. This policy manual will act as a
guide for officers while they perform their duties as well as how they conduct themselves
while off-duty. Given the ever-changing world in which we live and work, there is no way
to write a policy to cover the exact circumstances an officer must deal with. Therefore, it
is important to use their training, education, experiences, and knowledge and rely on the
resources and supervisors to guide them. As police officers we are the face of our
community and the badge and patch should be worn with pride and be a symbol of
peace and safety to our citizens. Our community members should be equally as proud
of what our badge and patch represent.

Employees shall serve with the following in mind: Honor - Dedication - Integrity –
Community

LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS

As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve the community; to safeguard

lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression

Page 49
 or intimidation and the peaceful against abuse or disorder; and to respect the constitutional
rights of all to liberty, equality and justice.

I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all and will behave in a manner
that does not bring discredit to me or to my agency. I will maintain courageous calm in
the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of
the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed both in my personal and official life,
I will be exemplary in obeying the law and the regulations of my department.
Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official
capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of
my duty.

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs,
aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for
crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and
appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force
or abuse and never accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a

public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of police service. I will never
engage in acts of corruption or bribery, nor will I condone such acts by other police officers.
I will cooperate with all legally authorized agencies and their representatives in the pursuit
of justice.

I know that I alone am responsible for my own standard of professional performance and
will take every reasonable opportunity to enhance and improve my level of knowledge and
competence.

I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God
to my chosen profession . . . law enforcement.

MISSION STATEMENT

The Minot Police Department will provide excellent police services to the citizens and
guests of the City of Minot. We will strive to reduce and prevent crime, to instill a sense
of safety and security, and to work in partnership with our community to preserve a high
quality of life. We will use our training and resources along with our values of honor,
integrity and trustworthiness to serve our citizens. Our goal is to make Minot a better
place for all to live through our commitment to our profession.

CITY OF MINOT ETHICS POLICY (attachment #21)

1. A public servant shall be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public
and personal relationships in order that they may merit the respect and confidence of all elected
officials, appointed officials, the citizens and other public employees.

Page 50
LOSS OF PUBLIC AND PROFESSIONAL TRUST

The review of the criminal investigations and the evidence identified was not intended to present
an alternate perspective suggesting that Lieutenant McLeod was guilty of committing the crimes.
Instead, it aimed to highlight the belief held by others that he was or could be guilty, along with
the impact those beliefs had on Lieutenant McLeod, the agency, and the public.

One of the most concerning pieces of evidence was Lieutenant McLeod’s failure on a polygraph
exam administered by the Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI). The polygraph is a tool used
by the Minot Police Department, BCI, and the Ward County State’s Attorney’s Office to charge
and convict offenders. Lieutenant McLeod himself stated he was informed that his failure “wasn’t
even close.” This failed polygraph not only tarnishes his reputation within the law enforcement
community, the judiciary, and the public but also hampers his ability to be an effective supervisor
and police officer.

The details of the case and the evidence outlined in the police reports led several individuals to
arrive at conclusions that often contradicted the outcomes of the criminal investigations, which did
not result in Lieutenant McLeod’s arrest for the alleged crimes. Notably, both detectives
investigating McLeod’s cases expressed their belief in his guilt.

Detective Sergeant Jurenic made several remarks, including:

- McLeod’s polygraph failure “bothered him.”

- “Typically, kids won’t make up stuff like this.”
- “Everything pointed to he did it.”
- He expressed frustration over the possibility that a police officer, a “public servant,”
committed such a crime and escaped accountability.
- He speculated that if a similar situation occurred in his agency, it would be difficult for
officers to work with someone they suspected could have committed such a heinous act.
- Detective Sergeant Jurenic conveyed that he had “concerns about him (McLeod).”
- He believed “something happened” between and McLeod.
- His “gut feeling” was that Matt McLeod was guilty of the sexual assault allegations made
against him by .

Additionally, Ada County Detective Garza documented in her official police report, “I let
Kimberly and Jimmy know I believed .” BCI investigators appeared to share the same
sentiment during their conversation with Mr. Dickerson, expressing surprise that Lieutenant
McLeod was still employed as a police officer.

Several individuals interviewed for this investigation either identified or concurred with evidence
in the police reports that suggested the possibility of being sexually assaulted and that
Lieutenant McLeod could be the perpetrator. This ongoing situation adversely affects Lieutenant
McLeod’s capacity to serve as a supervisor or a police officer for the City of Minot. Lieutenant
McLeod himself acknowledged that, regardless of the truth, rumors can have detrimental effects
on one’s professional life.

Page 51
 It ruins your life. The truth doesn’t matter; the allegations do. That’s all anybody cares
about. That’s why I’m where I am. Nobody cares about the truth. Whether in the PD or in
the public, they hear some rumors, and for them, that’s the truth. That’s all they accept.

Yes. It ruins their reputation. All we have is our reputation in this job.

Lieutenant McLeod has sustained violations the City of Minot Police Department’s Policies,
Rules, and Regulations, including:

Policy 322; Standards of Conduct

Policy 332.5.8: Performance

(i) Any act on duty or off duty that brings discredit to this department.

Policy 322.5.9: Conduct

(h) Criminal, dishonest, or disgraceful conduct, whether on or off duty, that adversely
affects the member’s relationship with this department.

(m) Any other on or off duty conduct which any member knows or reasonably should
know is unbecoming a member of this department, is contrary to good order, efficiency or
morale, or tends to reflect unfavorably upon this department or its members.

Lieutenant McLeod violated each of the rules, regulations and policies listed above.

Case Status

This case should be considered closed.

Page 52
Recommendations5

1. It is recommended that the City consider adopting a working relationship and/or structure for
oversight of the Police Department’s Professional Standards Division so that any time
disciplinary situation arises, (meaning conduct inconsistent with department rules or the law),
or a complaint is received (internal and external), the situation is reviewed with an individual,
preferably an attorney or highly experienced police professional, to determine the appropriate
course of action in investigating the situation.

a. The individual should be from the City Attorney’s office or unrelated to any member of
the police department or elected officials. We recommend revising existing department
Policy 322; Standards of Conduct or Policy 1005; Personnel Complaints to incorporate
this requirement for the Professional Standards Division and/or Command Staff as
appropriate.

b. By way of example, this investigation uncovered that Lieutenant McLeod directed a

subordinate employee to lie for him. Despite having that information in audio format in
the initial investigation, the violation was not sustained. The failure to sustain that
violation was known by Chief Klug and Captain Sundheim. Further, a subordinate
officer was truthful in the investigation and observed that no remedial or disciplinary
action was taken.

2. It is recommended that the City consider training all members of the department on the Law
Enforcement Officers Code of Conduct and Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, truthfulness,
Brady/Giglio obligations. The police department has operated under the premise that “personal
lies are acceptable.” So essentially there is no accountability until there is an effect on
operations and the officer is under investigation. Only after the officer is under investigation
and then lies are they held accountable. In other words, an individual can lie to their supervisor
and there are no consequences unless they are caught. Once caught (and under investigation)
they must tell the truth. This is not the appropriate standard in a professional organization.

It is highly recommended that the City and police department explain to each officer that their
conduct both at work and outside of work has consequences to operations and their working
relationships. Further, officers must understand that their conduct outside of work effects the
workplace and/or each other and there may be consequences for off duty conduct at work.

5
While some of these recommendations have been made previously, we are unaware of the status of implementation
of any of the previous recommendations. Based upon the information uncovered in this investigation standing alone,
these recommendations are necessary and appropriate.

Page 53
 This is the oath each officer takes:

I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all and will behave in a manner
that does not bring discredit to me or to my agency. I will maintain courageous calm in
the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of
the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed both in my personal and official life,
I will be exemplary in obeying the law and the regulations of my department.
Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official
capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of
my duty.

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs,
aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for
crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and
appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force
or abuse and never accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a

public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of police service. I will never
engage in acts of corruption or bribery, nor will I condone such acts by other police officers.
I will cooperate with all legally authorized agencies and their representatives in the pursuit
of justice.

The training should emphasize that an officer can and will be held accountable for misrepresenting
and/or lying to anyone at any time regardless of whether they are under investigation at the time.
The remote location of the City of Minot, as well as the close relationship between residents and
City personnel, only reinforces the importance of this policy.

3. It is recommended that the prior administration’s philosophy regarding on and off duty
misconduct, truthfulness and accountability be incorporated into the City’s interview and
selection process to ensure that the new chief of police is able to address this philosophy.

4. It is recommended that the City consider seeking certification from Commission on

Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) or the equivalent so that the police
department can have examples of best practices as well as the requirement to provide adherence
to best practices in order to retain accreditation by the selected agency.

5. We recommend revising existing department Policy 322; Standards of Conduct or Policy 1005;
Personnel Complaints to emphasize the officer’s obligation to report immediately any
circumstance that may discredit or disparage the Department/City and contact with law
enforcement.

6. It is recommended that the City consider adopting a policy outlining clear procedure for the
issuance of discipline for all violation(s) of the City’s policies, procedures, rules and
regulations in a timely manner, i.e. within days of the conclusion of an investigation and that

Page 54
 timeliness for implementation be adopted as a consistent practice throughout the organization,
i.e. all internal investigations shall strive to be completed within 30 days from the date in which
the complaint was received. When this is not possible, an extension of time to complete the
investigation shall be requested from the Chief. This request shall include the reason for any
delay.

7. It is recommended that the City re-evaluate the anti-harassment and discrimination training
they provide to employees to ensure that it is consistent with the requirements of state and
federal law. Supervisors should receive training on their responsibilities related to addressing
these issues. As this seems to be an ongoing issue raised in other investigations, previous
efforts have not been successful and the consequences for this behavior has not been sufficient.

8. It is also recommended that the City adopt an anti-nepotism policy so that individuals who are
in dating relationships and/or related to each other and/or married are not working together or
supervising one another. The mark of a professional is to set a standard and then adhere to it.
A professional agency must set standards for their employees to ensure a clear understanding
of what is expected. Clear guidelines establish culture which translates into overall agency
success.

Page 55
ClarkHill\M9214\507381\281099376.v4-3/6/25