Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning the
West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

John Foote, District Attorney

Chris Owen, Chief Deputy District Attorney
Rusty Amos, Senior Deputy District Attorney
Scott Healy, Senior Deputy District Attorney

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

The Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office (CCDA) conducted a review of the
West Linn Police Department (WLPD) investigation that led to the indictment in State of Oregon
v. Michael Fesser.1 The purpose of this review is to determine the obligations of the Clackamas
County District Attorney’s Office pursuant to Brady v Maryland and ORS 135.815 in light of the
information developed. Opinions and decisions expressed in this document are not intended to
usurp the decision-making authority of other entities that are investigating or reviewing this
conduct.
I. Scope of Review: Brady Analysis.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) held that prosecutors must share information with
a defendant that would be material and favorable to the defense. This type of evidence is
characterized as “exculpatory” meaning that it is favorable to a defendant in a criminal trial that
exonerates or tends to exonerate them of guilt. The Supreme Court, however, found that the
Constitution does not require police to preserve and disclose all information “that might be of
conceivable evidentiary significance.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995) Arizona v.
Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988). It must be “material.” The Supreme Court defined “material”
evidence as evidence that has a "reasonable probability" that, if the evidence was disclosed to
the defense, the result of the proceeding would be different. Maxwell v. Roe, 628 F3d 486,
509 (9th Cir 2010) (quoting Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280 (1999)); State v. Bittner,
235 Or App 554, 561 (2010). A "reasonable probability" is a probability sufficient to
undermine the confidence in the outcome. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985).
In Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 10 (1972), the Supreme Court later determined that
exculpatory evidence includes information that could be used to impeach the credibility of a
prosecution witness, including police officers. There are a number of ways to impeach a witness.
These include evidence bearing on a witness’ untruthfulness, prior inconsistent statements, bad
acts, and evidence of bias.
To find a Brady violation we must conclude that an officer acted in bad faith in failing to
preserve evidence or that the evidence suppressed was favorable and material. State v.
Hendershott, 131 Or App 531, 534 (1994), citing Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988).
See also State ex. Rel. Juv. Dept. of Wasco Cty. v. Huskey, 130 Or App 419, 423 (1994). In the
first scenario where the police fail to preserve evidence, meaning the evidence was not collected
or destroyed, we must specifically find the officer acted in bad faith. Youngblood, 488 U.S. at
58. The duty to preserve such evidence, however, exists only where the exculpatory value
(favorability and materiality) is readily evident. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488
(1984). In the second scenario, where the evidence was preserved but not turned over to the
prosecutor we only have to find that it was favorable and material to the case in order to find a
constitutional violation. These obligations, however, do not require the prosecutor or police to
compile a detailed accounting of all investigatory work, United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97
(1976); Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 (1972), again the evidence must be favorable and
material.
1

West Linn Police Department case number 19 2017-270, Portland Police Bureau case number 2017-57475 and
State v. Michael Lawrence Fesser, Multnomah County Circuit Court case number 17CR74881.

Page 1 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation of
Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

The analysis in this case is narrow in scope and focused on three questions:
1) Did any of the law enforcement officers involved in this case investigation fail to
preserve and provide Brady information?
2) If so, did the failure to provide this information or other actions by these law
enforcement officers demonstrate a lack of honesty or bad faith?
3) If the answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative, the CCDA has an obligation
to provide this information to the defense in any prosecution where these law enforcement
officers are witnesses. The CCDA must then determine whether these officers will be
called as witnesses or otherwise relied upon in any criminal prosecutions.
II. Summary
The focus of the Brady evaluation is the West Linn Police Department personnel
involved in the Michael Fesser criminal investigation, including: 1) Chief Terry Timeus,
2) Det. Tony Reeves (formerly known as Tony Poitras), 3) Lt. Mike Stradley, and 4) Det. Mike
Boyd. This report provides a review and analysis of the information that was, or was not,
collected in the course of the criminal investigation and eventually provided to prosecutors.
The CCDA did not interview witnesses associated with this case, as not to interfere with
the pending criminal investigation by the federal government. There is also a protective
order concerning some of the information developed during the civil litigation. The
information available, however, was sufficient to complete this review.
The narrative in this report describes the case and our findings while citing the
relevant sources of information. Included in the appendix is a timeline of events, the
WLPD investigative reports, relevant text messages, and a letter that was seized from Mr.
Fesser when he was arrested. In the course of this review, it was determined this
investigation was replete with inappropriate and offensive investigative tactics, and lacked
transparency, honesty and any sense of fair play.
The findings discussed in this report include a determination that Det. Tony Reeves and
Chief Terry Timeus committed misconduct together and independent of one another. The CCDA
finds that Det. Reeves withheld exculpatory/impeachment evidence, was complicit in an illegal
recording, and disclosed possible confidential attorney-client information. The CCDA also finds
that Chief Timeus was complicit in disclosing possible confidential attorney-client information
to Eric Benson, the alleged victim in this case. These acts provide an appearance of collusion that
was motivated by Chief Timeus’ personal friendship with the alleged victim.
III. Materials Reviewed by the Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office
On February 10, 2020, the Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office learned that the
City of West Linn settled a civil lawsuit filed by Michael Fesser against the WLPD police
department. The suit alleged misconduct that included an unlawful arrest, the unlawful seizure of
evidence, destruction of evidence, an investigation conducted outside of their jurisdiction,
withholding evidence, and the appearance of an inappropriate relationship between the
department chief and the alleged victim. The suit also asserted that a racist hostility fueled the
Page 2 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation of
Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

criminal investigation against Mr. Fesser, an African American man, based on text messages
discovered during the civil litigation.2 The lawsuit specifically alleged misconduct by the
following West Linn Police Department officials: 1) Chief Terry Timeus, 2) Det. Tony Reeves
(formerly known as Tony Poitras), 3) Lt. Mike Stradley, and 4) Det. Mike Boyd. The Clackamas
County District Attorney’s Office began an assessment of the evidence, and after consultation
with federal law enforcement authorities, determined this office would focus on issues pertaining
to our obligations under Brady v Maryland, and federal authorities would initiate a criminal
investigation.
Upon request from the CCDA, Mr. Fesser’s civil attorney Paul Buchanan provided
materials from the civil litigation to the CCDA as listed below. Mr. Buchanan redacted portions
of some of these materials due to the existence of a protective order in the civil litigation: 3
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

Second Amended Complaint, Michael Fesser v. The City of West Linn, Terry Timeus,
Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv-01516-SB, dated January
7, 2020;
Declaration of Paul Buchanan in Support of Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, Michael Fesser v. The
City of West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No.
3:18-cv-01516-SB, dated May 16, 2019;
Declaration of Paul Buchanan in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third
Amended Complaint, Michael Fesser v. The City of West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony
Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv-01516-SB, June 28, 2019;
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Michael Fesser v.
The City of West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil
No. 3:18-cv-01516-SB, January 31, 2019.
Transcript of the Videotaped Deposition of Neil Hennelly, Michael Fesser v. The City of
West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv01516-SB, August 26, 2019.
Transcript of the Videotaped Deposition of Tony Reeves, Michael Fesser v. The City of
West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv01516-SB, March 15, 2019.
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of James Michael Stradley. Michael Fesser v. The
City of West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No.
3:18-cv-01516-SB, June 12, 2019.

2

Second Amended Complaint, Michael Fesser v. The City of West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and
Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv-01516-SB; Declaration of Paul Buchanan in Support of Reply to Defendant’s
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, Michael Fesser v. The City of West
Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv-01516-SB; Declaration of Paul
Buchanan in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, Michael Fesser v. The City
of West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv-01516-SB; Plaintiff’s
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Michael Fesser v. The City of West Linn, Terry Timeus,
Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv-01516-SB.
3
Stipulated Protective Order, Michael Fesser v. The City of West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and
Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv-01516-SB, November 6, 2018.

Page 3 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation of
Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Terry Timeus, Michael Fesser v. The City of
West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv01516-SB, June 25, 2019.
Texts from Terry Timeus’ phone from civil litigation: Michael Fesser v. The City of West
Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv01516-SB.
Texts from Eric Benson’s phone from civil litigation: Michael Fesser v. The City of West
Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv01516-SB.
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, Michael Fesser v. The City of West
Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv01516-SB, January 23, 2018.
Video Recording, Deposition of Eric Benson, Michael Fesser v. The City of West Linn,
Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv-01516-SB,
January 23, 2018.
Defendant West Linn Police Department Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s First Set
of Interrogatories, Michael Fesser v. The City of West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves,
Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv-01516-SB, January 22, 2018.
Defendant West Linn Police Department Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for
Admission, Michael Fesser v. The City of West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike
Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv-01516-BR, October 29, 2018.
Defendant West Linn Police Department Response to Plaintiff’s Second Set of
Interrogatories, Michael Fesser v. The City of West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves,
Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv-01516-SB, February 19, 2019.
Defendant West Linn Police Department Response to Plaintiff’s Third Set of
Interrogatories, Michael Fesser v. The City of West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves,
Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv-01516-SB, September 6, 2019.
Defendant West Linn Police Department’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for
Admission, Michael Fesser v. West Linn Police Department; Terry Timeus; Tony Reeves;
and Mike Boyd, Civil No. 3:18-cv-1516-BR.
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Fred Marlow IV, Michael Fesser v. The City of
West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv01516-SB, January 23, 2019.
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, Michael Fesser v. The City of
West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv01516-SB, March 7, 2019.
Investigation Case File: Michael Fesser v. Eric Benson, Llc Dba A & B Towing and
Recovery EEEMRCI170523-10657, Bureau of Labor and Industries, State of Oregon.
A&B Towing business records collected by WLPD

In addition to the materials from the civil litigation, the CCDA received the following
information from the West Linn Police Department and the Multnomah County District
Attorney’s Office:

Page 4 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation of
Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

•
•

The complete physical file in State v. Michael Lawrence Fesser, Multnomah County
Circuit Court case number 17CR74881.
Internal Affairs Investigation by the West Linn Police Department regarding Det.
Mike Boyd and Det. Tony Reeves and the Fesser case. Such materials included:
o Notice of Investigatory Interview, Sgt. Tony Reeves.
o Internal Affairs Reprimand, Sgt. Tony Reeves.
o Internal Affairs interview of Tony Reeves.
o Internal Affairs interview of Mike Boyd.
o Text Messages between Terry Timeus and Eric Benson.
o Text Messages between Reeves and Eric Benson.
o Police Reports, Michael Fesser/A&B Towing theft investigation. West Linn
Police Department case number 2017-270.

IV. Factual Background
The investigation into Michael Fesser began with allegations he was stealing money from
his employer, A&B Towing, Inc. Eric Benson owned the company at the time, but his father,
who founded the company, was the person who hired Mr. Fesser in 2004.4 In 2016/17, Mr.
Fesser was responsible for a bi-monthly auction at A&B Towing where used or damaged
vehicles were sold to the public or other businesses dealing in car sales or auto parts. In late
2016 or early 2017, Mr. Benson contacted his friend, West Linn Police Department Chief Terry
Timeus, to report what he indicated was his belief that Mr. Fesser was stealing money during the
auctions.5 He alleged that Mr. Fesser developed a scheme where he would sell a vehicle for a
certain amount of money, but then write a lower amount as the sales price on the
receipt/documentation memorializing the purchase, and pocket the difference. Mr. Benson
alleged he believed Mr. Fesser stole a substantial amount of money (potentially $200,000) during
the previous three years.6
Subsection “A” outlines the investigation submitted by the West Linn Police Department
to the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office. Subsection “B” outlines the information
revealed during civil litigation, an internal affairs investigation by WLPD, and the Multnomah
County District Attorney’s Office’s records relating to the prosecution of Mr. Fesser.

A. The West Linn Police Department’s Criminal Investigation of Michael Fesser.

4

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pg. 30.
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pg. 48 (Benson states that he first spoke
with Chief Timeus about his concerns “somewhere in the neighborhood of November or December 2017 – or ’16”)
and pg. 126 (Benson stated that “when I contacted the police originally, I talked to Terry Timeus, who point me, to
well, call it Mr. Poitras or Detective Poitras”).
6
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg.3.
5

Page 5 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation of
Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

The purpose of this section is to provide a detailed description of the case file from the
West Linn Police Department regarding the investigation of Michael Fesser. It is important to
understand this information in the context of what was – and was not – included in the
investigative reports and ultimately provided to a Multnomah County Grand Jury. There is an
initial report written/finalized on February 24, 2017, and a supplemental report dated February
28, 2017. The narrative portion of the reports total three pages.7
The reports state the investigation began on February 6, 2017, when Det. Reeves met
with Mr. Benson to talk about an allegation of an employee theft occurring at A&B Towing in
Portland.8 There is nothing in the report explaining why the West Linn Police Department was
investigating a crime alleged to have occurred in the City of Portland. In his report, Det. Reeves
documented that Mr. Benson’s suspicions of theft arose from his discovery that he was making
substantially less money at the weekend auctions than he had in the past.9 Mr. Benson told Det.
Reeves “he called a few other tow companies and asked them if they were seeing a drop in the
prices of vehicles at the auction [and he was told] they were not.”10 Mr. Benson also spoke to an
employee whose name was not included in the reports.11 That employee identified a friend
named Marcus Olmos, who purchased two vehicles at an auction from Mr. Fesser in 2016. The
report states:
“Benson said he then talked to an employee and learned that her friend, Marcus Olmos,
purchased two vehicles at the auction on November 26, 2016. Olmos purchased a 2007
Toyota Yaris for $1540.00. Fesser reported the Yaris sold for $375.00. Olmos also purchased
a 1998 VW Golf for $150.00. Fesser reported the vehicle sold for $75.00. This is a $1240.00
difference.”12
It is unclear what prompted the employee to share this information with Mr. Benson. In response
to receiving this information, Det. Reeves contacted Mr. Olmos to take a statement. He called
him by phone on February 6, 2017, and confirmed the purchases and that he had paid a higher
price.13
On February 11, 2017, Det. Reeves reported that Brian Dunst, a manager for A&B
Towing, had a friend attend one of Mr. Fesser’s auctions.14 The police reports did not identify
the name of the friend. Nonetheless, that person physically attended the auction and reported the
results to Mr. Dunst who was listening over the phone.15 On February 13, 2017, Det. Reeves met
with Mr. Benson and Mr. Dunst at their office.16 They discussed the process associated with the
February 11th auction and Det. Reeves was shown documentation. The parties explained to Det.
7

West Linn Police Department case 2017-270, the criminal investigation into Michael Fesser.
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
9
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
10
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
11
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
12
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
13
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
14
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
15
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
16
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
8

Page 6 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation of
Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

Reeves that as part of the sale, each vehicle has its own paperwork that is then wrapped around
the money from the sale and dropped into a safe box outside the office.17 Mr. Benson and Mr.
Dunst told the detective that twenty-four (out of forty-six) of the vehicles sold at the February
11th auction were purchased for a greater price than reported.18 The price difference was between
$25 to $225 per vehicle.19 The total difference reported by Mr. Fesser was about $1,000.20 In the
investigative reports, Det. Reeves identified two fraudulent purchases. The first was a 2001 Jeep
Cherokee sold to Everything Auto owned by Darryl Anderson.21 The documentation prepared by
Mr. Fesser listed the sale price at $225, but Mr. Dunst overheard the sale and believed it sold for
$250.22 Det. Reeves contacted Mr. Anderson who confirmed the car sold for $250, thus a
difference of $25.23 The second purchase involved a 1997 Honda Passport sold to Fred
Marlow.24 The recorded sale price was $100, but Mr. Dunst heard it sell for $150 and Mr.
Marlow confirmed that amount, thus a difference of $50.25 At this point, Det. Reeves “stopped
contacting witnesses in an attempt to keep [Mr.] Fesser from learning of [his] investigation.”26
On February 16, 2017, Mr. Benson contacted Det. Reeves about a customer who
provided him with additional evidence of theft against Mr. Fesser.27 The customer was Nijaz
Omerovic.28 Mr. Benson arranged the meeting with Mr. Omerovic and Det. Reeves at his
office.29 The following excerpt is from Det. Reeves’ report:
“Omerovic told me that Fesser has been stealing from the auction for several years. He
told me he has seen Fesser filling out two separate auction sheets. One with the real price
the vehicle was sold for and one with the reported price. Omerovic told me he keeps
records of the vehicle he purchases from the auction and he would provide those records.
He told me he never reported this because he was afraid of the consequences from Fesser.
He said Fesser recently took $250.00 from him and would not give it back. He said he
was tired of Fesser stealing and felt it was time to report it. He told me that he knew I was
investigating Fesser because Darryl asked him if I contacted him.”30
In the report, Det. Reeves states that Mr. Omerovic provided him paperwork
documenting the purchase and difference in sale price(s).31 The paperwork included DMV lien
papers, an A&B towing contract, and in one case, a title for a vehicle. On the documentation, Mr.

17

West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
19
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
20
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
21
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
22
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
23
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
24
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
25
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
26
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
27
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
28
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
29
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
30
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
31
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
18

Page 7 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation of
Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

Omerovic hand-wrote the sale price.32 Det. Reeves then took the A&B Auction Sheets provided
by Mr. Benson to compare the sale prices.33 The four cases identified in the investigative reports
include:
•
•
•
•

On October 22, 2016, Mr. Omerovic purchased a 2004 Toyota Matrix during an
auction for $1,870.00 but Mr. Fesser documented the purchase price at $500.34
On October 22, 2016, he purchased another vehicle at the auction, a 2000 Toyota
Tacoma for $1,870.00 but Mr. Fesser reported the sale price at $550.35
On November 26, 2017, Omerovic purchased a 2013 Honda Civic for $4,950.00 and
Mr. Fesser documented that it sold for $1,000.36
On January 28, 2017, he purchased a 2013 VW Jetta for $1,500.00 while Mr. Fesser
reported a sale for $450.37

In the report, Det. Reeves states that Mr. Omerovic only gave him the mentioned paperwork.38
The police reports state that Mr. Dunst, who was never subject to a thorough law
enforcement interview, continued to investigate. He attempted to retrieve all auction records
from A&B towing. During his search, however, he realized the 2016 auction file was missing.39
He relayed his discovery to Mr. Benson who asked Mr. Fesser about the missing files. He
claimed they were at home so he could do his collection reports.40 This was not standard
business practice according to Mr. Benson, as the collection records were supposed to be filled
out the day of the auction.41
The final supplemental report discusses the actions of Det. Reeves on February 25,
2017.42 However, the date for the auction in the report is February 26th, which is incorrect.43
Nonetheless, the report talks about Det. Reeves and his colleague, Det. Mike Boyd, attending the
A&B Towing auction.44 The report does not mention what actually happened at the auction or
communications between Det. Reeves, Mr. Benson and Chief Timeus, which is discussed in
Subsection “B.”45 It states the following:

32

West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
34
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
35
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
36
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
37
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
38
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
39
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
40
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
41
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
42
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
43
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
44
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
45
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
33

Page 8 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation of
Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

“On February 26, 2017 Detective Boyd and I attended the A&B Towing auction located
at 5838 SE 111th Avenue, Portland, Or. Portland Police staged in the area with the intent
to arrest Micheal Fesser for Aggravated Theft 1 following the auction.”46
The next line in the report documents the arrest and then continues to discuss the search
of Mr. Fesser’s vehicle, contact with him, review of evidence, a new witness, and a subsequent
meeting.47 The report is one page long. It documents that after Mr. Fesser was arrested, Det.
Reeves searched his vehicle.48 During the search, Det. Reeves seized an auction list and a title to
a vehicle sold at the auction, along with $500 and several other documents labeled with A&B
Towing.49 Mr. Fesser was taken to Portland Police Bureau’s East Precinct for an interview.50
After reading Mr. Fesser his Miranda rights, the reports indicate that Det. Reeves asked him a
few specific questions where each time Mr. Fesser replied “I don’t have anything to say about
that.”51 Det. Reeves then ended the interview.52
The reports state that Det. Reeves then examined the evidence collected from the search
of Mr. Fesser’s car. He identified the paperwork wrapped around the $500 as a title to a vehicle
for Mr. Fesser’s car business.53 He also found additional paperwork belonging to his dealership
and communications between Mr. Fesser and a law firm.54 The detective indicates that he sealed
these items in a large envelope and contacted Mr. Fesser to inform him he could retrieve them at
the WLPD.55
Det. Reeves continued his investigation by contacting several more witnesses.56
However, the report does not discuss how he identified certain individuals as potential witnesses,
how many people he interviewed, or their names and contact information. The report only
mentions one person, a potential witness named Robin Palmer who purchased the majority of the
vehicles at the A&B Towing auctions on behalf of NW Metals.57 According to the reports, Mr.
Palmer told Det. Reeves that he kept records for all the vehicles he purchases and would provide
them to the police.58 This is the extent of the documentation of the interview in the police report.
Det. Reeves then met with Mr. Fesser on February 28, 2017, to return the property seized from
his vehicle.59 The detective states that as Mr. Fesser was walking away he smiled and said
“Robin wanted me to tell you hello.”60 The detective said he asked “Robin Palmer?” and,

46

West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
48
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
49
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
50
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
51
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
52
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
53
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
54
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
55
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
56
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
57
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
58
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
59
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
60
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
47

Page 9 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation of
Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

according to Det. Reeves, Mr. Fesser smirked, walked away and said, “Bum.”61 At this point, the
detective wrote in his report that it was clear Mr. Fesser was implying that Mr. Palmer would not
cooperate.62 This is the last mention of Mr. Palmer in the police reports.
These reports are purported to document the relevant aspects of the investigation, and
were the only information submitted to the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office and
later to a Grand Jury. This is important for this Brady review, as it demonstrates Det. Reeves and
the West Linn Police Department withheld exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the context
of an investigation that lacked any pretense of being thorough and objective.
B. Information Discovered Concerning the West Linn Police Department’s
Investigation in the Fesser Case During Civil Litigation.
The following is a comparison of the information developed in Mr. Fesser’s civil
litigation to the WLPD investigation.
This review revealed that Mr. Benson initiated a crime report in the Fesser matter in
November/December 2016 or early January 2017, when he contacted his friend, Terry Timeus,
the former Chief of Police for the West Linn Police Department. 63 Mr. Benson testified at a
previous deposition they were in fact friends and had known each other for seven to ten years,64
although Chief Timeus claimed they were just acquaintances who had gone fishing a few
times.65 Nonetheless, there was a relationship and a potential conflict of interest or appearance
of impropriety. Chief Timeus ignored any such conflict when he decided to look into the matter,
and assigned Det. Reeves (formerly Poitras) to investigate. During the course of the
investigation, the law enforcement personnel involved in the matter were all aware of the
relationship and conflict of interest. Det. Reeves stated in his deposition that at the time he wrote
his police reports he knew about the friendship.66 In reference to the investigative reports,
however, there was never any mention of Mr. Benson’s relationship with Chief Timeus. This is a
potential conflict of interest and impeachment evidence as well.
The civil depositions revealed details of this initial conversation between Mr. Benson and
Chief Timeus. Mr. Benson reported he had an employee, Angela Palmer (dispatcher for A&B
Towing), tell him that her friend, Marcus Olmos (purchaser), bought a car for a certain amount
of money and when Mr. Benson went to the auction sheet it was reported as a different amount.67
Prior to this report, Mr. Benson did not have any concerns about Mr. Fesser’s honesty or

61

West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
63
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pg. 48 (Benson states that he first spoke
with Chief Timeus about is concerns “somewhere in the neighborhood of November or December 2017 – or ’16”)
and pg. 126 (Benson stated that “when I contacted the police originally, I talked to Terry Timeus, who then pointed
me to, well call it Mr. Poitras or Detective Poitras”).
64
Transcript of Deposition, Eric Benson, pgs. 46.
65
Transcript of Deposition, Chief Terry Timeus, pg. 25 – 28 (“fishing acquaintances”).
66
Transcript of Deposition, Det. Tony Reeves, Pgs. 99 – 100.
67
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pgs. 49-50.
62

Page 10 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

trustworthiness.68 None of this information, however, including Ms. Palmer’s name, or what
prompted her to report this to Mr. Benson in the first place, was included in the police reports.
In January 2017, Chief Timeus debriefed and assigned Det. Reeves to investigate the
theft case involving Mr. Fesser. He also debriefed Lt. Mike Stradley and Capt. Hennelly. The
information reviewed from the civil litigation provided the following details about the briefings:
•

Chief Terry Timeus had a meeting with Det. Reeves about the possible employee theft
from A&B Towing.69 Det. Reeves said in a later deposition that it was unusual for the
chief to walk into his office.70 The chief said he had a possible employee theft from A&B
Towing and asked Det. Reeves to look into it.71 The specific details of this first meeting
are unknown given that none of the parties took any notes or wrote any reports about it.72
At the initial meeting, Det. Reeves knew the criminal conduct occurred in another
jurisdiction.73 At some point during the meeting, Det. Reeves remembered the chief told
him that Eric Benson, the owner of A&B Towing, would contact him to talk about the
theft.74

•

During this initial stage, Lt. Mike Stradley and Capt. Neil Hennelly were also debriefed.75
Their initial goal was to refer the case to the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) and have Det.
Reeves shadow those investigators.76 Given Lt. Stradley’s prior experience and contact
with the Portland Police Bureau, he would be the person to contact that agency.77

After the initial debrief in mid-to-late January 2017, Lt. Stradley contacted PPB about
investigating the case. Lt. Stradley would later state he did not feel he was getting any
cooperation.78 Lt. Stradley told Det. Reeves to talk to PPB Sgt. Randy Tieg.79 On February 1,
2017, Det. Reeves contacted Sgt. Tieg and PPB Det. Becker about investigating the case.80 Det.
Reeves also shared that Mr. Benson was “willing to front cash to me to buy cars and get P.C.”
68

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pgs. 101-102.
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Tony Reeves, pg. 55 (The January 2017 timeframe was deduced from a
February 1, 2017, email from Mr. Reeves to a PPB Detective discussing a conversation he had with another PPB
Detective Tieg which was prompted by direction from West Linn Lt. Mike Stradley inferring the initial debrief was
in early January).
70
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Tony Reeves, pgs. 44 – 45.
71
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Tony Reeves, pgs. 45.
72
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Tony Reeves, pgs. 45
73
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Tony Reeves, pgs. 48.
74
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Tony Reeves, pgs. 46 – 47.
75
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Neil Hennelly, pg. 18.
76
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Neil Hennelly, pg. 18-19.
77
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Neil Hennelly, pg. 19; also see Transcript of Video Deposition of Tony
Reeves, pg. 166; also see Transcript of Video Deposition of Mike Stradley, pg. 48 - 49.
78
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Stradley, pgs. 45 -46 (Lt. Stradley made contact with Det. Commander
Dave Hendrie and tried to get him to take the case); pgs. 68 – 69; also see pg. 67 (“ * * *my impression from the
conversation was they were completely blowing it off and didn’t want anything to do with it, just weren’t
interested.”).
79
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Tony Reeves, pg. 55, 58.
80
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Tony Reeves, pg. 55 (refers to an email from Det. Reeves to PPB
Detective Becker which states: “I just talked to Sgt. Tieg about a case I want to work on Fesser”)
69

Page 11 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office
81

Sgt. Tieg ultimately told Det. Reeves that PPB was unwilling to take on the investigation.82
Around this time, the West Linn Police Department decided to take on the investigation.83
On February 6, 2017, Det. Reeves met with Mr. Benson at his office for the initial
interview. This was the first interaction mentioned in Det. Reeves’ investigative reports.84 The
meeting appears to have occurred at the police department.85 In this meeting, Mr. Benson told the
detective why he suspected Mr. Fesser was stealing from him. In the reports, Det. Reeves wrote
that Mr. Benson first became suspicious when “he noticed he was not making as much money
from the weekend auctions as he expected to make.”86 The report further states that Mr. Benson
said “he called a few other tow companies and asked them if they were seeing a drop in the
prices of vehicles at the auctions. He said they told him they were not.”87 In a later deposition,
however, Mr. Benson stated that he never said this to the detective. The civil lawyer specifically
asked him about this statement from the report (quoting the police report) and then asked if he
said it.88 Mr. Benson replied “No.”89 The attorney then asked Mr. Benson if he had “any
understanding as to why Det. Reeves would put that statement in his police report if you didn’t
tell him that?”90 Mr. Benson replied “Not to my knowledge.”91 In addition, the report written by
Det. Reeves stated that Mr. Benson also told him an “employee” learned a friend, identified as
Marcus Olmos, reported that he had paid a higher price for vehicles than what Mr. Fesser
reported.92 Mr. Benson stated that he gave the name of the employee, Angela Palmer, to the
detective. 93 That name was never included in the police reports.
The investigative reports also do not include any questions or information about the
relationship between Mr. Fesser, Mr. Benson and the towing company. In reviewing depositions,
however, the civil attorneys learned about prior complaints by Mr. Fesser alleging racial
discrimination. In 2014, he voiced concerns about a co-worker using the “N” word. 94 In 2016,
Mr. Fesser made another racial discrimination complaint against a different employee.95 The
depositions in Mr. Fesser’s civil suit also confirmed that Mr. Benson used the “N” word as a
“slang” term.96 This racist sentiment is abundantly clear to Det. Reeves on February 25, 2017, as
discussed later in this report, when Mr. Benson sends texts to the detective about “racist boys”

81

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Tony Reeves, pg. 72 referencing Exhibit 17
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Tony Reeves, pg. 79 (Reeves stated that Sgt. Tieg told him that PPB was
unwilling to take the case).
83
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 126-127 (Benson said that in February 2017, Chief
Timeus directed him to PPB and then back to the West Linn Police Department), also see pg. 126 (Timeus told him
the investigation was better off in West Linn).
84
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
85
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Tony Reeves, pg. 48.
86
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
87
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
88
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pgs. 135.
89
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pgs. 136.
90
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pgs. 136.
91
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pgs. 136.
92
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Sgt. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
93
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pgs. 49-50.
94
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pgs. 74 – 81.
95
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pg. 87.
96
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pg. 44.
82

Page 12 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

taking care of Mr. Fesser and people “nigger knocking.”97 In his deposition, Mr. Benson
confirms that he made the racist statements in the text messages. 98
This historical information about the complaints of racial discrimination is potentially
favorable to Mr. Fesser and material to the criminal investigation. While Det. Reeves may not
have known about specifics of prior complaints initiated by Mr. Fesser, he admitted being aware
of the potential of a racial discrimination lawsuit prior to February 24, 2017,99 and of course, the
discussion of the lawsuit and racial slurs from the February 25, 2017 text exchange. Det. Reeves,
however, never mentioned anything in his police reports about the potential racial discrimination
lawsuit or the texts.
In his deposition during the Fesser civil suit, when asked about a potential racial
discrimination lawsuit, Det. Reeves said that he knew Mr. Benson “was concerned about being
sued for racial discrimination” and he was told about such concerns on “multiple occasions.”100
Again, despite such knowledge, there was nothing about it in Det. Reeves’ police reports. Since
Det. Reeves would later delete the text messages between he and Mr. Benson from his cell
phone, the weight of the evidence is such that he did so with the intent of suppressing
impeachment evidence that should have been included in his investigative reports.
On February 9, 2017, Chief Timeus texted Mr. Benson with Det. Reeves email
address.101 In the text string, Mr. Benson mentioned NW Metals: “I thin he is with nw metals.
(sic)”102 It is unclear who or what he is talking about. Chief Timeus responds “if that is the scrap
dude I’m sure, scrappers are dirty.”103 Mr. Benson says “Yep.”104 The only connection to this
case and NW Metals is witness Robin Palmer, who bought vehicles from A&B Towing auctions
for the business. As previously mentioned, Det. Reeves describes in a report that he wanted to try
and make contact with Mr. Palmer to obtain records, but that it never happened; the detective
inferred that he had a relationship with Mr. Fesser and became uncooperative.105
In early-mid February 2017, Mr. Fesser began to consult with an attorney about his
employment discrimination claims.106 On February 11, 2017, A&B Towing employee Brian
Dunst (since deceased) conducted his own investigation by documenting the prices, in real time,
for the sale of vehicles at an auction run by Mr. Fesser that day. Mr. Dunst was not present at the
auction.107 Another employee, Roger Fulton, who was never interviewed as part of the
investigation, attended the auction, and Mr. Dunst listened to the auction on his phone through
97

Text Messages, Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2020.
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pg. 44.
99
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 95; also see Text Messages between Det. Tony
Reeves (Poitras) and Mr. Benson, February 25, 2017.
100
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 95.
101
Text Messages between Chief Timeus and Mr. Benson, February 9, 2017, 10:16 am.
102
Text Messages between Chief Timeus and Mr. Benson, February 9, 2017, 10:16 am.
103
Text Messages between Chief Timeus and Mr. Benson, February 9, 2017, 10:16 am. See also, Transcript of
Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 52.
104
Text Messages between Chief Timeus and Mr. Benson, February 9, 2017, 10:16 am.
105
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
106
According to Mr. Buchanan, he began representing Mr. Fesser in mid-February.
107
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 113-114; See also West Linn Police Report dated
2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3.
98

Page 13 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

Bluetooth and wrote down the prices as they were announced.108 He then preserved his written
document/notes. Those notes were given to Mr. Benson, who then gave them to Det. Reeves.109
This documentation is referenced in the civil case as “Brian’s List.” As a result of Mr. Dunst’s
investigation on February 11th, the parties (Mr. Benson, Mr. Dunst and Det. Reeves) concluded
that Mr. Fesser recorded lower sales prices for the vehicle(s) sold that day and stole the
difference.110
Examples of these purportedly fraudulent vehicle purchases are included in Det. Reeves
police reports, and include a 2001 Jeep Cherokee purchased by Everything Auto, Inc.111 The
owner, Darryl Anderson, told the detective that he purchased the vehicle for $250, but the
documented price of the sale by Mr. Fesser was allegedly $225.112 Mr. Anderson told the
detective that he also purchased a 1990 Acura for $100.00, but according to Mr. Benson and Mr.
Dunst the documentation had listed the same sales price.113 In addition, Fred Marlow also
purchased a 1997 Honda Passport for $150.114 However, the documentation reviewed by Mr.
Benson and Mr. Dunst showed that Mr. Fesser listed the sales price as $100.115
In the Fesser civil case, Mr. Marlow was deposed but did not remember anything, nor did
he have any records.116 He said that “in 2017, I was really disorganized” and that he never
“wrote down anything” or in any way documented the purchase or price.117 When asked if he
had any way of knowing or proving the purchase price of the Honda Passport on February 11th,
he said “Right at this time, I don’t know. I mean, if you would have asked me before, maybe I
would have, but I don’t know right now.”118 When asked specifically about the February 11th
purchase he said “I have no clue” and that “I’m not going to start making up stuff. I don’t
know.”119
During the deposition, Mr. Marlow also talked about having memory issues.120 For
example, if he bought a car three days ago he wouldn’t remember the purchase price “unless [he]
looked at the paperwork that [he] kept in [his] file cabinet.”121 Finally, when asked about Mr.
Fesser, it was clear Mr. Marlow did not like him. He told the civil lawyers that Mr. Fesser was a
108

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson Deposition, pg. 140, 226 – 227 (“the auction went through
Bluetooth and Brian wrote down the prices that were being announced during the auction”); also see pg. 142. See
also West Linn Police Department report dated 2/24/2017, WLPD case 2017-270, written by Det. Tony Reeves, pg.
3 (“This time Brian Dunst, a manager for A&B Towing had a friend attend the auction. His friend was on the phone
with him throughout the auction. Dunst could hear the auction and kept track of the sale price of the vehicles”).
109
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pgs. 141 - 142 (Benson states: “I do not recall if I had it or
Brian handed it to the police”).
110
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 3-4.
111
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
112
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
113
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
114
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
115
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270pg. 4.
116
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Fred Marlow, pgs. 13 – 18, 19, 23 – 29.
117
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Fred Marlow, pg. 13.
118
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Fred Marlow, pgs. 16 - 17.
119
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Fred Marlow, pgs. 33.
120
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Fred Marlow, pgs. 19 - 20.
121
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Fred Marlow, pgs. 19.

Page 14 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

“dick” and that he told the police just that.122 In this matter, however, the police reports failed to
discuss any documentation or lack thereof regarding the February 11th purchase, nor was Mr.
Marlow able to substantiate the price he paid for the vehicle. In addition, the reports do not
mention anything about Mr. Marlow’s sentiments regarding Mr. Fesser, which is clearly
important information that goes to his bias.
Several days later, it appears that Det. Reeves was trying to follow up with Mr. Benson
about ledgers and records. A text from Chief Timeus to Mr. Benson on February 13, 2017 states
“Poitras is patiently awaiting your call.”123 He then sent Mr. Benson the contact number for Det.
Reeves (Poitras), again.124 Chief Timeus also asked Mr. Benson if he “looked at the ledger yet?”
and Mr. Benson says “Nope.”125 The chief asked whether “Numbers match up”126 but did not
receive a response. Then, later that day, Mr. Benson sent a text message to Det. Reeves with his
business address and Brian Dunst’s contact information.127 Finally, Sgt. Reeves met with Brian
Dunst and Eric Benson at their office to talk about the February 11th auction.128 As previously
mentioned, the police reports state:
“Dunst kept track of the sales price of each vehicle (referring to the February 11, 2017,
auction) and on February 13th, 2017 I met with Dunst and Benson at their office. Fesser
drops the auction sheet and the money from the auction into a drop safe at the office.
Each vehicle has its own paperwork and the money for each vehicle is in wrapped in
paperwork.”129
It is our understanding that during this meeting, Mr. Dunst provided Det. Reeves with a copy of
the written document that he created, as he wrote down and recorded the vehicle prices during
the February 11th auction (“Brian’s List”).130 This document purports that 24 of the 46 vehicles
at the February 11th auction sold for more money than Mr. Fesser reported. This document
purporting to describe the alleged thefts from the February 11th auction, however, is hardly
forensically sound. In fact, it is incomprehensible without interpretation by Mr. Dunst. It is
simply a list of sale prices, but does not include any vehicles associated with those numbers;
entries are scratched out, and there are question marks by other entries. This leaves many
questions about the methods used to produce the document, its accuracy, and attention to detail.
122

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Fred Marlow, pgs. 23.
Text Messages between Chief Timeus and Mr. Benson, February 13, 2017, 8:35 am. See also Deposition of Chief
Terry Timeus, pg. 60.
124
Text Messages between Chief Timeus and Mr. Benson, February 13, 2017, 8:35 am.
125
Text Messages between Chief Timeus and Mr. Benson, February 13, 2017, 8:35 am.
126
Text Messages between Chief Timeus and Mr. Benson, February 13, 2017, 8:35 am.
127
Text Messages between Det. Tony Reeves (Poitras) and Mr. Benson, February 13, 2017, 8:54 am, 1:44 pm.
Transcription of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 170.
128
Police Reports, West Linn Police Department report dated 2/24/2017, WLPD case 2017-270, written by Det.
Tony Reeves, pg. 3.
129
Police Reports, West Linn Police Department report dated 2/24/2017, WLPD case 2017-270, written by Det.
Tony Reeves, pg. 3.
130
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 113 (“This is the list Brian Dunst provided me of
what he said he heard vehicles sell for over the phone at the auction on February 11, 2016”); Transcript of
Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pgs. 141 – 142 (Benson testified that “I do not recall if I handed it or Brian
handed it (the written document) to the police”).
123

Page 15 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

On February 15, 2017, Mr. Benson texted Det. Reeves and asked for a call. The text
stated “Call me when you have a minute sir: I have something interesting to tell u.”131 Det.
Reeves did not respond. Then, Mr. Benson sends another text: “Holy moly sir. If u could call me
tonight it would be good.”132 During a later deposition, Mr. Benson was asked about the purpose
of the texts and he claimed to “not” recall what the conversation was about.133
A day later, Mr. Benson texted the detective again with the contact information for
another individual. 134 It is unclear whether this individual played any part in this investigation as
the police reports never mention his name. However, it was determined that this individual does
own a guided fishing charter business.135
On the same day, February 16, 2017, Det. Reeves sent information about his
investigation into Pick-n-Pull Cash for Junk Cars, Co.136 This company also purchased vehicles
at the towing auctions. Det. Reeves sent a text message to Mr. Benson stating: “The reason pick
and pull stopped coming is they are pulling parts off the cars after the auction.”137 The
conversation continues:
§
§
§
§
§

Mr. Benson: “Is that a question?”
Det. Reeves: “Statement from one of the buyers. For AR Towing.”
Mr. Benson: “Seriously”
Det. Reeves: “That’s what he said.”
Mr. Benson: “Fuck me.”138

However, the police reports do not mention or document any contact between the detective and
Pick-n-Pull, nor does it include a statement(s) from employees, their name(s) or contact
information. From the text exchange, it appears that Mr. Benson may have believed the buyers
from Pick-n-Pull stopped attending the auction because of Mr. Fesser’s alleged criminal conduct,
but instead there was another reason.
On February 16th, Mr. Benson also contacted Det. Reeves about another alleged victim.
He told the detective that a customer contacted him with information about Mr. Fesser
stealing.139 Mr. Benson identified the customer as Nijaz Omerovic and arranged a meeting.140 On
this date, Det. Reeves met with Mr. Omerovic and Mr. Benson at Mr. Benson’s office.141 As
131

Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/15/2017 at 5:04 pm.
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/15/2017 at 6:45 pm,
133
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pg. 171.
134
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, January 23, 2018, pg. 171. Text Messages between Mr.
Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/16/2017 at 12:15 pm,
135
The individual’s name was subject to a Google search and it was determined he owned a fishing guide service.
136
Pick-n-Pull Cash for Junk Cars: https://www.picknpull.com/locations.aspx?View=Detail&ID=118.
137
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/16/2017 at 2:08 pm,
138
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/16/2017 at 2:13 pm,
139
Police Reports, West Linn Police Department report dated 2/24/2017, WLPD case 2017-270, written by Det.
Tony Reeves, pg. 4.
140
Police Reports, West Linn Police Department report dated 2/24/2017, WLPD case 2017-270, written by Det.
Tony Reeves, pg. 4.
141
Police Reports, West Linn Police Department report dated 2/24/2017, WLPD case 2017-270, written by Det.
Tony Reeves, pg. 4.
132

Page 16 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

mentioned in the previous section of this report, the reports document a statement from Mr.
Omerovic claiming that Mr. Fesser “had been stealing from the auction for several years” and
that he filled “out two separate auction sheets. One with the real price the vehicle sold for and
one with the reported price.”142 Det. Reeves’ reports fail to elaborate how Mr. Omerovic knew
that Mr. Fesser had two auction sheets. In addition, the reports state he told Det. Reeves that Mr.
Fesser recently stole $250 and would not give it back to him.143 Mr. Omerovic claimed that he
was tired of Mr. Fesser stealing and felt it was time to report it.144 Mr. Omerovic also said that he
knew the detective was investigating, because “Darryl” asked him if he contacted the police.145
The reports, however, never identify the “Darryl” he was referring to, yet one could presume it
was Darryl Anderson. During the meeting, Mr. Omerovic promises to provide documentation of
the purchases.146
In the civil deposition, Mr. Omerovic provided additional details about his relationship
with Mr. Benson and the auctions, and told a very different story. Mr. Omerovic testified to
knowing Mr. Benson for about five years through a business relationship.147 He also admitted to
personally buying vehicles “on the side” from Mr. Benson in violation of DMV rules.148 In the
police reports, Det. Reeves stated that Mr. Benson told him that Mr. Omerovic contacted him
with information about Mr. Fesser;149 however, in his later deposition Mr. Omerovic stated that
Mr. Benson contacted him: “Eric (Benson) told me that he has [an] investigation going in regards
to Michael Fesser [and asked] if I can come to [his] office.”150 Mr. Omerovic could not
remember if Mr. Benson told him what it was about, maybe payments and purchases.151 He also
testified that he had no pre-existing knowledge that Mr. Fesser was stealing from the auctions
prior to his initial contact with Mr. Benson.152 This is concerning, because the police reports, as
previously mentioned, claim that he told Det. Reeves that Mr. Fesser was stealing for “years”.153
When questioned about this contradiction during the deposition, Mr. Omerovic said he could
“not remember.”154 In his deposition, Mr. Omerovic also failed to state that he saw Mr. Fesser
with two auction sheets. 155
In the deposition, Mr. Omerovic also admitted that he was mad at Mr. Fesser for bidding
against him.156 He testified this occurred at an auction on November 15, 2017, and the dispute
142

Police Reports, West Linn Police Department report dated 2/24/2017, WLPD case 2017-270, written by Det.
Tony Reeves, pg. 4.
143
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
144
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
145
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
146
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270pg. 4.
147
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 13.
148
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 63.
149
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 4.
150
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 15.
151
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 25.
152
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pgs. 23 – 30, 91-94.
153
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270pg. 4.
154
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pgs. 31.
155
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pgs. 23 – 30, 91-94.
156
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 25; 78-81.

Page 17 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

was over a Subaru vehicle.157 He also claimed that Mr. Fesser was taking bids over the phone
and driving up prices.158 During the deposition, Mr. Omerovic was also questioned about a text
conversation between Mr. Fesser and himself, where he threatened to “get him (Mr. Fesser)
back” and “I will pay back and Karma is a bitch.”159
Mr. Omerovic also testified that he met with two police officers at Mr. Benson’s
office. He said he was unsure or could not remember all of the details of the meeting.161
Nonetheless, he said that prior to the meeting Mr. Benson asked him to provide
documentation.162 In the police reports, the detective said that Mr. Omerovic provided him with
the paperwork during the initial interaction, which Mr. Omerovic confirmed during his civil
deposition.163 The evidence suggests that Mr. Omerovic also gave copies to Mr. Benson as well,
who compared it with the auction sheets, and then followed up with the detective about his
analysis. 164 When asked about the documentation he provided, Mr.Omerovic admitted to
bringing documents for 4 to 5 car purchases, but that he still had all the records for purchases he
made at the A&B Towing auctions.165 He says that he only brought documentation for those
transactions because they were recent.166 He further explained that the West Linn police never
asked him for all the records.167
160

The civil attorneys confirmed that Mr. Omerovic’s recordkeeping practices included
handwritten notes about the sales price of a vehicle.168 When questioned about the purchase of a
2000 Toyota Tacoma, the documentation stated that he wrote down $1,870.00, but he admitted to
writing down the wrong number – the actual price was $2,500.169 He said he did not realize the
mistake when he was talking to the police.170 In summary, there are vast discrepancies between
Mr. Omerovic’s statements in the investigative police reports and his civil deposition testimony
that are very concerning.
On February 17, 2017, it appears that Det. Reeves and Mr. Benson may have met again.
There was a text between Mr. Benson to the detective asking “What time are you coming by?”171

157

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 78-82.
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 25; 86-87.
159
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 85-87.
160
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 15.
161
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 28 – 35.
162
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 23.
163
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270 pg. 4; Transcript of Videotaped
Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 23 – 28.
164
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 29-35; Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det.
Reeves, 2/18/2017.
165
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 43.
166
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 42-44.
167
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 112.
168
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 26, 46 - 47.
169
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 53-54.
170
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 55.
171
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/17/2017 at 9:47 am.
158

Page 18 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

When questioned about the meeting, both Det. Reeves and Mr. Benson failed to recall whether
they met.172
On February 18, 2017, Mr. Benson contacted Det. Reeves about Mr. Omerovic’s
paperwork. Mr. Benson texts “These are the two I sent u from Neil this weekend” and “Looks
like a difference of 2690.00 on these two.” 173 (“Neil” is believed to be Mr. Omerovic). Mr.
Benson then texted a few photo images of paperwork from Mr. Omerovic.174 During the
uploading and texting of this documentation, the detective asked “Did he drop that paperwork off
yesterday”.175 The detective clarified: “I mean the 2016 from Messer”176 Mr. Benson replied,
“Brian is suppose to let me know today.”177 It is unclear what or who is “Messer” (it was
possibly a typo and meant to be “Fesser”) and/or whether such a document was ever provided.
In the days after February 18, 2017, it appears that Brian Dunst continued with his own
investigation. The police reports written by Det. Reeves state the following:
“Brian Dunst attempted to retrieve all auction records from the tow yard and the 2016
auction file was missing. Benson asked Fesser about the files and Fesser stated he had
them at home so he could do a “collections report”. Benson told me the report used to be
done at the office the day of the auction. We decided not to push Fesser for the file at this
time as to not tip him off to the investigation.”178
It is important to note that Det. Reeves apparently never interviewed Mr. Dunst about this
investigation, given that no such statement was included in his police reports. The extent of Mr.
Dunst’s actions and involvement in this case are therefore uncertain. Nonetheless, the texts
further reveal that he and Mr. Benson were actively investigating the case and most of the
information provided to Det. Reeves, and then relied on in the criminal case (and information in
the police reports) was from the Dunst/Benson investigation. For this reason, the lack of a
detailed statement from Dunst is stark and inexplicable.
On February 21, 2017, Chief Timeus texted Mr. Benson that Det. Reeves was finishing
up his case and they intended to arrest Mr. Fesser after the February 25, 2017, auction at A&B
Towing. The text messages states:

172

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pgs. 172-73 (“I don’t recall. I could have.”); Transcript of
Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pgs. 121-122 (“I don’t remember that meeting, no, if he came by or
not.”).
173
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/18/2017 at 11:31-11:32 am,
174
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/18/2017 at 11:31 am, 11:50 am, 11:53 am,.
175
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/18/2017 at 11:48 am. The message appears to reference
Mr. Omervic’s documentation because a copy of such document(s) are then sent/texted to Det. Reeves. Transcript of
Videotaped Deposition of Det. Toney Reeves, pg. 122 (Detective confirms “he” was referring to Omerovic and the
paperwork).
176
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/18/2017 at 11:52 am.
177
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/18/2017 at 11:57 am.
178
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270 pg. 4.

Page 19 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

“Talked to Poitras, he is finishing up a sex case and will have your case ready to go
before Saturday. He plans on hooking him right after the auction, in hopes your missing
records are in his car. If I hear more I’ll let you know.”179
The fact that the Chief of Police is texting his friend and sharing operational information
regarding the future date and location of the arrest is inappropriate and further contributes to the
appearance of collusion.
On February 22, 2017, PPB Sergeant Cheryl Waddell emailed Det. Reeves about
contacting the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) about the Fesser case. It was the impression
from Lt. Stradley that the case was being passed around within PPB to different supervisors and
investigators, and that PPB was “completely blowing it off and didn’t want anything to do with it
[the case], they just weren’t interested,” hence the referral to the Oregon DOJ.180 However, it
appears that neither Det. Reeves, or anyone from the West Linn Police Department, reached out
to the Oregon DOJ. Given the February 21st text from Chief Timeus, the WLPD apparently was
almost done with the investigation, and prepared to make an arrest; failing to explore more
appropriate and qualified avenues for the investigation.
On February 21/22, 2017, preparations were being made to attend the February 25th
auction. Mr. Benson had already spoken to Det. Reeves 181 and Mr. Omerovic about attending.
Mr. Omerovic stated during his deposition that both Mr. Benson and the police department asked
him to make an appearance 182 but they never gave him a reason or explanation.183 In addition, as
mentioned previously, PPB agreed to assist in the stop and arrest.
On February 23, 2017, Det. Reeves texted Mr. Benson and asked about the starting time
for the auction. Mr. Benson responded with a request to meet. The text exchange included the
following184:
•
•
•
•

Det. Reeves: “What time is the auction Saturday?? And about how long do they last.”
(8:28 am)
Mr. Benson: “Can I come down and talk about that today? Like 10 am. I’ve been thinking
about a couple of things.” (8:29/8:30 am).
Det. Reeves: “Yes.” (9:14 am).
Mr. Benson: “Running a few behind. Had to take my daughter to doc. My wife is out of
town. She has a concussion.” (9:55 am).

179

Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Chief Timeus, 2/21/2017 at 1:37 pm; See also Transcript of Videotaped
Deposition of Chief Terry Timeus, pg. 101, and Transcript of Videotaped Deposition Transcript of Det. Tony
Reeves, pg. 152 (Det. Reeves testified “yes” that he planned to arrest Mr. Fesser before the auction regardless of
what happened at the auction), and Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 180 (Mr. Benson was
asked if that was his expectation that on 2/25 that Det. Reeves was going to arrest Mr. Fesser and he replied “That is
what he told me was going to happen.”).
180
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition or Lt. James Stradley, pg. 67.
181
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 174.
182
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 77.
183
Transcript of Videotaped Depositions of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 77 - 78.
184
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/23/2017 at 8:28 am – 9:57 am.

Page 20 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

•

Det. Reeves: “No worries. I am here.” (9:57 am).

During the depositions, neither Det. Reeves nor Mr. Benson could remember what they talked
about during this meeting.185 Afterwards, Mr. Benson texted the detective a series of addresses to
include his home, business and manager’s home.186 The texts state:
•
•
•
•

Mr. Benson: “[Texts home and business address]. I don’t care about the rest.” (11:07 am)
Mr. Benson: “They are unnamed lots.” (11:07 am)
Mr. Benson: “[Manager’s Address]” (11:07 am)
Mr. Benson: “My managers house.” (11:07 am)

The next day, February 24th, the detective and Mr. Benson continued to communicate. The
texts state:187
•
•

Mr. Benson: “Call me if u can” (1:08 pm).
Det. Reeves: “No cars.” (1:32 pm).

Later in the afternoon, Mr. Benson sent additional texts about going by Mr. Fesser’s
dealership:188
•
•
•
•

Mr. Benson: “Did u go his dealership” (3:37 pm).
Mr. Benson: “By his dealership” (3:37 pm).
Det. Reeves: “I did not. Too busy getting everything done for tomorrow.” (3:38 pm)
Det. Reeves: “Ok.” (3:38 pm).

It was on this date that Det. Reeves authored his first investigative report summarizing evidence
collected so far, including statements by Mr. Benson, Mr. Omerovic, Marcos Olmos and Brian
Dunst.189 In his deposition, Det. Reeves admitted that when he wrote the police report(s), he was
aware of the relationship between Chief Timeus and Mr. Benson, but did not include that
information.190
On February 25, 2017, Det. Reeves and Det. Boyd attended an A&B Towing auction
managed by Mr. Fesser. The detectives were present at the auction, while Mr. Benson and Mr.
Dunst were listening through an application (SwannView App). 191 Det. Reeves and Mr. Benson
were in constant contact by text throughout the auction. As noted above, Det. Reeves and Mr.
Benson asked Mr. Omerovic to show up.192 During his deposition, Mr. Omerovic said he was not
185

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Mr. Benson, pg. 175.
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/23/2017 at 11:07 am – 11:22 am.
187
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/23/2017 at 1:08 pm – 1:32 pm.
188
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/23/2017 at 3:37 pm – 3:38 pm.
189
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 1-5 (“Date/Time
02/24/2017”); Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 65-66 (testified that he completed his
report on 2/24).
190
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 99 – 100.
191
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 191 and 205 (Mr. Benson said he as at home listening
on the app – “Brian and I both.”)
192
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 77 - 78.
186

Page 21 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

told anything or given a reason to attend, but was simply asked to be there.193 A text message
obtained from Mr. Benson’s phone during the civil case corroborated Mr. Omerovic’s
testimony194:
•
•
•
•
•

Mr. Benson: “Do I see Neil?” (12:47 pm)
Mr. Benson: “U” (12:47 pm)
Det. Reeves: “Not yet.” (12:47 pm)
Mr. Benson: “Fucking pussy he is. If he doesn’t show that’s an issue” (12:48 pm)
Det. Reeves: “I got this!!” (12:48 pm)

About a half hour later, Mr. Omerovic arrived. Det. Reeves sent a text to Mr. Benson stating
“Neil is here.”195 It is clear from the text messages that Det. Reeves had preexisting knowledge
of the fact Mr. Omerovic was asked to attend, but he never included any of this information in
any report as to the role Mr. Omerovic was supposed to play in this investigation.
As mentioned, the detectives were present at the auction while Mr. Benson and Mr.
Dunst were listening through the SwannView App, which was being operated by another
employee; and the conversation was recorded.196 Mr. Benson testified that was the only auction
ever recorded.197 During his deposition, Mr. Benson was asked whether Mr. Fesser was advised
or aware of the recording and he said “I’m not sure. There is a sign up [and] I believe it says
‘surveillance and audio.’”198 The recording included conversations that Mr. Fesser had with other
employees, such as Daniel Danton (see text messages), where Mr. Fesser was allegedly “making
comments about the race thing;”199 and based on the text messages, he was also talking to people
about “lists” and “playing the race card.”200
In a later deposition, the civil lawyers asked Det. Reeves about the recording. When
asked if people at the auction were made aware that it was being recorded, he said “I don’t know
if there is or not.”201 He was then asked if he was concerned about recording without the
knowledge and consent of the other people present and he said “I wasn’t, no.”202 He did
acknowledge that he was aware it was a violation of Oregon law.203 He was then asked again if
he was worried about it and the detective said “it didn’t cross my mind, no.”204 Finally, he
193

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 77 - 78.
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 12:47 pm – 12:48pm; Transcript of Videotaped
Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pg. 82 – 83 (Mr. Omervoic testifies about the text messages while confirming he was
asked to attend).
195
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 1:22 pm.
196
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 191 and 205 (Mr. Benson said he as at home listening
on the app – “Brian and I both.”)
197
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 73.
198
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 181.
199
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 182.
200
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 10:35 am – 10:37 am, 10:42 am, 12:55 pm –
12:56 pm.
201
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 85-86.
202
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 86.
203
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 86.
204
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 86.
194

Page 22 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

claimed that he did “not know that it was being recorded or not. I knew it was being monitored.”
When asked if he was told the auction was being recorded through the SwannView App, he said
“I don’t remember what I was told.”205 Later in the deposition, Det. Reeves would acknowledge
he knew the auction was being recorded.206
During his deposition, Mr. Benson said the recording still existed and it was at his
attorney’s office.207 He also stated that it could be copied/duplicated.208 The fact that Mr. Benson
and Mr. Dunst were listening to the auction, and to Mr. Fesser’s conversations, were facts never
included in the police reports in this case; neither was the actual recording itself.
The text communications on February 25, 2017, between Mr. Benson and Det. Reeves
include the following:209
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Mr. Benson: “We are doing the right thing, right?” (9:20 am). Det. Reeves does not
respond.
Mr. Benson: “When he (Fesser) was making the list last night he was asking Daniel if
anything weird was going on. Daniel said no.” (10:35 am). In a later deposition, Mr.
Benson says that Mr. Fesser was talking to another employee by the name of Daniel
Danton.210
Mr. Benson: “And he was making comments about the race thing to Daniel.” (10:37 am)
Det. Reeves: “That’s fine. Pulling the race card isn’t a get out of jail free card. He is
robbing you blind.” (10:42 am).
Mr. Benson: “For sure” (10:44 am).
Det. Reeves: “Auction starts at 1 right?” (10:58 am).
Mr. Benson: “I would go early and look around. U can be there at 12. Look like a dirt
bag.” (10:59 am).
Det. Reeves: “Ok and I do.” (11:01 am).

The second text string(s) between Mr. Benson and Det. Reeves occurs after the detectives arrive
at the auction. The conversations illustrate concerning and inappropriate banter. The first
message is sent at 12:36 pm from Det. Reeves who states “People buy this shit?!”.211 A few
minutes later, the detective follows up with another text stating “Today his (Fesser’s) reign of
terror ends.”212 The two individuals continue to discuss the auction and confirm that Mr. Fesser
is present. At 12:47 pm, they talk about Mr. Omerovic’s attendance as previously mentioned.213
The conversation then turns to the racial discrimination lawsuit. Mr. Benson texts “He knows for

205

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 88.
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 165
207
Deposition of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 73.
208
Deposition of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 73 - 74.
209
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 9:20 am – 11:01 am.
210
Deposition of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 180-181.
211
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 12:36 pm.
212
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 12:40 pm.
213
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 from 12:47 pm – 12:48 pm.
206

Page 23 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

sure. Totally on to us. Playing the racist card with guy in the office”214. The conversation
continues: 215
•
•
•
•
•
•

Mr. Benson: “He is playing the race card big time. Fuck” (12:56 pm).
Mr. Benson: “He’ll sue the shit out of me.” (12:56 pm).
Det. Reeves: “I have a solid case.” (12:57 pm).
Mr. Benson: “I’m shitting myself after what I heard” (12:58 pm).
Det. Reeves: “Stop. I have 6 whitenesses (sic)” (1:00 pm).
Mr. Benson: “They are dirty.” (1:00 pm).

The detective then tries to reassure Mr. Benson about the criminal investigation. He says “the
case is already solid.216” To which Mr. Bensons asks “100 percent solid? I’m scared of a huge
lawsuit.”217 Det. Reeves confirms that its “100%”218 solid. Then he mentions that “Neil”219
(Omerovic) had arrived. The conversation continues to include friendly banter. Det. Reeves
pretends that he is insecure about the case and texts “Fuck this I’m scared you’re on your own!!
No I’m 3 blocks away.”220 The conversation continues:221
•
•
•
•

Mr. Benson: “U fucking wedge.” (1:58 pm).
Det. Reeves: “I learned from you!!” (1:58 pm).
Mr. Benson: “Pay backs are a bitch. I know your boss. He likes playing with my balls.”
(1:59 pm).
Det. Reeves: “Um ok. Too much information.” (1:59 pm).

The parties then talk about the auction for twenty minutes before Mr. Benson texts that Mr.
Fesser is “pulling the race card again”222:
•
•
•

Mr. Benson: “He is pulling the race card again with a bunch of people. Saying we are
getting rid of him for bidding shit up. Three of my driver’s he is talking about. Saying he
is pissing in cups for drivers. Now he is talking about the list.” (2:26 pm).
Det. Reeves: “so maybe he doesn’t know the police are looking at him.” (2:26 pm).
Mr. Benson: “Totally going off about black and white to white guys” (2:26 pm).

The men then talk about how Mr. Fesser is “covering his ass”223 and their plan to arrest when the
auction is done. Mr. Benson then texts that Mr. Fesser is playing the “Big time race card. I need

214

Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 12:50 pm.
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 from 12:56 pm – 1:00 pm.
216
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 1:06 pm.
217
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 1:07 pm.
218
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 1:07 pm.
219
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 1:22 pm.
220
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 1:57 pm.
221
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 from 1:58 pm – 1:59 pm.
222
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 2:36 pm.
223
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 2:28 pm.
215

Page 24 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

a drink.224” The conversation then flows into more banter that is inappropriate but with a racial
tone:225
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Det. Reeves: “That’s funny cuz I’m talking shit about you as well.” (2:35 pm).
Mr. Benson sends an emoji with a hand extending the middle finger. (2:36 pm).
Mr. Benson: “Funny cause your boss is in my family room looking at your posts on
grinder” (2:37 pm).
Det. Reeves texts a smiley face emoji blowing a heart-kiss. (2:37 pm).
Mr. Benson: “U sick bastard.” (2:38 pm).
Det. Reeves: “1.3 miles away from Clackamas county. .3 miles too far to prosecute
there.” (2:39 pm).
Mr. Benson: “I know right. If he went there I would make sure he never got out.” (2:39
pm).
Mr. Benson: “And make sure he was with some real racist boys.” (2:41 pm).
Mr. Benson: “Dreams can never come true I guess” (2:41 pm).
Mr. Benson: “Oh did I say that? I’m a bad person. I have some anger issues going on
with him right now.” (2:43 pm).
Det. Reeves: “I can’t imagine why.” (2:44 pm).
Mr. Benson: (Talking about Mr. Fesser) “He is confiding in the guy with the weird coat.”
(2:44 pm).
Det. Reeves: “He needs to hurry up already.” (2:46 pm).
Mr. Benson: “No shit” (2:50 pm).
Det. Reeves: “Impressed how well you [unintelligible] while being t-bagged by the
chief!” (2:50 pm).
Mr. Benson: “Funny he is telling me how u got promoted to detective. I guess u took
good care of him.” (2:52 pm).

The men then turn their conversation back to the auction. At one point, there is a mention by Mr.
Benson that he learned from Brian Dunst there were “two lists”226 but that fact was never
clarified during the course of the investigation; meaning the purpose of two lists or whether they
were recovered. For the next hour, the messages include conversations about what is happening
on the floor of the auction, then the topic of the lawsuit comes up, followed by more banter
resulting in another racial slur227:
•
•
•
•
•

Det. Reeves: “You’re acting like a wedge again.” (4:15 pm).
Mr. Benson: “No I’m not. Fuck him.” (4:15 pm).
Det. Reeves: “When people steal from you and you catch them. Lawsuits don’t go very
well.” (4:15 pm).
Mr. Benson: “Back to talking about suing me” (4:17 pm).
Det. Reeves: “I’m about to sue you for being a pussy.” (4:18 pm).

224

Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 2:30 pm.
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 from 2:35 pm – 2:52 pm.
226
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 3:14 pm.
227
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 4:15 pm – 4:28 pm.
225

Page 25 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Mr. Benson: “Don’t make me sick my vicious 45 pounds lab on you” (followed by a text
picture of his dog on his bed) (4:19 pm).
Mr. Benson: “Vicious I tell u.” (4:20 pm).
Det. Reeves: “What the fuck is that bed??” (4:20 pm).
Mr. Benson: “Lol. It’s a bean bag. Only the best for her. She cost me a lot of money.
Trained killer. For birds that is” (4:21 pm).
Det. Reeves: “Hope Fesser doesn’t get her in the law suit.” (4:22 pm).
Mr. Benson: “Hahaha. She is not a fan of that type of folk. She is a wl dog” (4:22 pm).
Det. Reeves: “Just starting to rain. I bet (inaudible) leave now.” (4:24 pm).
Mr. Benson: “Now my daughters boyfriends are nigger knocking me.” (4:25 pm).
Mr. Benson: “Just ran them off.” (4:25 pm).
Mr. Benson: “That was racist sir.” (4:27 pm).
Mr. Benson: “His buddy sued me for an employee saying it’s raining.” (4:28 pm).
Det. Reeves: “Really?? Wow.” (4:28 pm).
Mr. Benson: “Yep” (4:28 pm).

For the next ten minutes, the men talk more about the auction and then focus on the arrest. The
texts state:
•
•
•
•
•

Mr. Benson: “He has to go soon. Has to meet someone at his dealership. I’m curious if he
goes to my office to drop my money. This is taking way to long. To much copying. Never
used to be like this.” (4:36 pm).
Det. Reeves: “I bet he won’t drop it off. Fighting Trip!?” (4:37 pm).
Mr. Benson: “(inaudible) shit. You’ll stop him before he does.” (4:37 pm).
Det. Reeves: “My game my rules!!” (4:38 pm).
Mr. Benson: “That’s gay.” (4:38 pm).

At that point during the conversation, it appears that Mr. Fesser had completed the paperwork
and is preparing to leave the auction. At 4:48 pm, Mr. Benson is texting about the auction
paperwork and money, and sends the detective a picture of both. Mr. Benson is then relaying by
text what is happening with Mr. Fesser, in order to coordinate and prepare for the arrest, but the
banter does not stop. Mr. Benson complains how long this is taking and that “this is cutting into
cocktail hour”228 to which the detective responds “I’m fucking starving at this point.”229 In
response, Mr. Benson says “U fucking pussy. Want me to bring u a donut? Who has the wedge
now?” (with a few emojis)230. And the detective says “still you.”231 The rest of the text messages
involve Mr. Benson relaying more information to the detective about Mr. Fesser’s whereabouts
and then communication about his arrest.
These text messages and conversations between Det. Reeves and Mr. Benson are
impeachment evidence as they demonstrate Mr. Benson’s motive to fabricate due to his racial
bias. They expose an improper relationship and banter between a detective and an alleged victim
228

Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 5:17 pm.
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 5:17 pm.
230
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 5:19 pm.
231
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 5:19 pm.
229

Page 26 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

of a crime. They include racial epithets and slurs, derogatory and offensive language, references
to numerous witnesses about them being “dirty,” insecurity about the investigation, and a strong
motive to fabricate these allegations to avoid civil liability in a racial discrimination lawsuit. Det.
Reeves, however, never documented any of law enforcement’s activities at the February 25th
auction in his police reports. He never documented Mr. Benson’s concerns Mr. Fesser was going
to file a racial discrimination lawsuit against him. Furthermore, he never wrote about Mr.
Benson’s proclivity to use racial slurs, consistent with a history of using the “N” word by both
Mr. Benson and employees within his company. When questioned about Mr. Benson’s use of the
“N” word on February 25th during his civil deposition, Det. Reeves acknowledged that “it made
me realize I dealt with a guy who used racist terms and was racially insensitive.”232
Despite this realization, the detective admitted to deleting racially charged text messages
between he and Mr. Benson from his cell phone.233 In fact, Mr. Fesser’s civil attorney asked both
Mr. Benson and the detective for a copy of any text conversations through the formal subpoena
process. However, it was too late to get this information from Det. Reeves, because he had
already removed the text messages from his phone.234 More specifically, Mr. Fesser’s attorney
issued a subpoena in October of 2017, requesting text messages from Det. Reeves.235 During his
deposition, the civil attorney asked the detective what he did in response to the subpoena. He
testified “I looked on my phone to see if there were any text messages there and there were
not.”236 He was then asked the specific question, “so your testimony is that in October 2017 you
had no text messages on either of your phones about Mr. Fesser?” and he responded “It is,
yes.”237 When asked specifically when it was he deleted the messages he said “I don’t have any
idea.”238 Finally, when asked if the act of deleting the messages was intentional he said “yeah,
you have to intentionally delete them”239 and when he was asked why he did it, the detective
responded “The case was over and I did not realize that it would come back up.”240 However, the
case was not over. On the date that he received the subpoena, the Multnomah County Grand Jury
had yet to convene. If it wasn’t for Mr. Benson complying with his civil subpoena to produce
the text messages, nobody would have discovered they existed.
Concerning the February 25th auction, Det. Reeves also admitted he took notes about the
car sales.241 He explained that he used the auction sheet.242 That item and those notes were not
included with the reports.243 In addition, he acknowledged he did not supply this information to
the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office, and could not remember if he had discarded
them, but nonetheless did not have the notes.244
232

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 181.
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 222 – 223 (Det. Reeves: “* * *you have to
intentionally delete them.”).
234
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 222.
235
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 222.
236
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 222.
237
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 222.
238
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 223.
239
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 223.
240
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 222.
241
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pgs. 90-91.
242
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pgs. 90-91.
243
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pgs. 90-91.
244
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pgs. 90-91.
233

Page 27 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

Once the auction was over on February 25th, the WLPD, with assistance of PPB, stopped
Mr. Fesser in his vehicle and arrested him. This was purportedly a traffic stop and arrest based
on probable cause he had committed the crime of theft through the scheme previously explained
in this report. The police also searched Mr. Fesser’s vehicle. In Det. Reeves’ police report he
states:
“I searched the Land Rover he was driving at the time of his arrest and collected several
items that appeared to have evidentiary value to this case. This included the auction list, a
title to a vehicle sold at the auction with $500.00 attached to it and several other
documents labeled with A&B Towing.”245
Det. Reeves continues to explain in his reports that he later went through the seized items in
more detail.246 He noticed the paperwork with the $500 attached to it was a title for a vehicle
owned by Fesser’s dealership, paperwork belonging to his dealership, and communications
between Mr. Fesser and a law firm.247
Det. Reeves’s report says that he sealed the items and then returned them to Mr. Fesser a
few days later.248 The reports fail to mention, however, that he seized Mr. Fesser’s cell phone. In
his deposition during the civil case, Det. Reeves talked about seizing the cell phone because he
had considered doing a search warrant, but then decided not to seek one.249 He also admitted that
he did not log and secure the phone into the property room, but instead left it on his desk for
three days before giving it back to Mr. Fesser.250 But perhaps most inexplicable and concerning,
is the fact that a draft of a letter Mr. Fesser intended to send to Mr. Benson, through the
assistance of his attorney, was seized and then subsequently given to Mr. Benson by Det.
Reeves.251
In his deposition, Det. Reeves admitted to seeing a letter addressed to Mr. Benson from
Mr. Fesser’s attorney.252 His testimony suggests that he was aware of the confidential and
privileged nature of the communication between Mr. Fesser and his lawyer. He was specifically
asked if he “maintained a copy of the letter” and he testified “I did not.”253 Later in his
deposition, Det. Reeves was asked about “that discrimination letter” he “took from Mr. Fesser’s
car.”254 It is unclear from the transcript whether this was the letter addressed to Mr. Benson from
his attorney, or a separate document. Nonetheless, it was a letter Mr. Fesser had written with the
assistance of his attorney and could be considered privileged. When Det. Reeves was asked
whether he “gave that letter to Mr. Benson after the arrest of Mr. Fesser,” Det. Reeves testified “I

245

West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
247
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
248
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
249
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pgs. 201-202.
250
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 203.
251
See letter from Mr. Fesser to Mr. Benson dated 2/24/17 in appendix.
252
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 192.
253
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 192.
254
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 249
246

Page 28 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

don’t remember if that happened or not.”255 He was then asked “So it may have happened, but
you don’t recall it. Is that fair?” and the detective said “Correct, yes.”
However, Mr. Benson remembered the “discrimination” letter. During the civil litigation,
Mr. Fesser’s attorney asked Mr. Benson to provide documentation associated with the civil
claim. Within those documents, Mr. Benson produced the letter.256 When the civil lawyers asked
him how he obtained a copy of it, Mr. Benson said “From Tony Poitras”.257 He was asked if it
was the letter seized during the search of Mr. Fesser’s vehicle on February 25th. He said “I would
assume” and explained that the letter was brought to him by Det. Reeves who told him “I found
this in his car.”258
Despite Det. Reeves claiming he “did not remember” giving the letter to Mr. Benson, we
find it hard to believe that Det. Reeves would forget such a fact given the nature of this conduct.
After the letter was seized by Det. Reeves on February 25th, he immediately told Mr. Benson,
who texted Chief Timeus: “Poitras found a letter already about the work place and
discrimination.”259 It’s clear from the deposition and text message that Chief Timeus and Det.
Reeves were aware of the sensitive nature of that document, but nonetheless provided it to Mr.
Benson. The seizure of this letter and subsequent release to Mr. Benson was never documented
in any report. The only viable reason to relay this information was to provide Mr. Benson with
an advantage in the civil suit that Mr. Benson made clear he was expecting from Mr. Fesser. The
conduct is obviously egregious, and insightful into the motivations and intentions behind the
actions of these law enforcement representatives.
Going back to the events of February 25th, after the auction and vehicle search, Det.
Reeves interviewed Mr. Fesser about the theft allegations at the Portland Police Bureau’s East
Precinct.260 According to the police reports, Det. Reeves asked Mr. Fesser a few questions where
he responded “I don’t have anything to say about that,” at which point the detective ended the
interview because he believed Mr. Fesser was not willing to participate.261 At 11:24 pm, Mr.
Fesser was released from custody.262 The police did not find any evidence of theft or criminal
conduct by Mr. Fesser during the February 25th auction.
In his reports, Det. Reeves talks about continuing his investigation by contacting several
more witnesses.263 However, the police reports only discuss one witness, a Mr. Palmer, who as
previously discussed, did not cooperate.264 The names and information provided by other
witnesses contacted by Det. Reeves were not included in his reports. We believe one such
witness was Daniel Danton, the person that Mr. Fesser was talking to during the February 25th
auction. The day after the auction, February 26th, Mr. Benson sent Det. Reeves a text stating “I’m
255

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pg. 249.
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 234.
257
Deposition of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 234.
258
Deposition of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 234.
259
Text Messages between Chief Timeus and Mr. Benson, 2/25/17, at 6:25 pm.
260
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
261
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270 , pg. 6.
262
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/25/2017 at 9:20 am – 11:0 am (“FYI, he is released”).
263
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
264
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
256

Page 29 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

interviewing Daniel at 10 in my office, maybe you should be there.”265 The next day, Det.
Reeves responds “Sure I’ll ask him what’s going on. See you at 10.”266 The text communication
continues and states that Mr. Danton did not show up for the meeting, but Det. Reeves sent a text
that “3 more buyers confirming you got ripped off. NW Metals says they will be me record for
vehicles purchased.”267 While the police reports discuss Mr. Palmer, who worked for NW
Metals, but was not cooperative according to Det. Reeves; the other two buyers referred to in this
text message were never identified or mentioned in any reports.
On February 27, 2017, Mr. Benson contacted Hunter Caputo with HREssentials, his
human resource contractor about firing Mr. Fesser.268 Text messages indicate that Mr. Benson
had been in contact with Mr. Caputo about Mr. Fesser in the days leading up to the February 25th
auction.269 On February 27th, Mr. Caputo sent a message to Mr. Benson stating that the
termination was complete: “He’s been terminated. He was informed not to contact a and b. Let
me know if he does.”270 On this same date, the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office
elected to no complaint the criminal case against Mr. Fesser, meaning they were not filing
charges at that time.
On February 28, 2017, Det. Reeves authored a supplemental report documenting the
vehicle stop of Mr. Fesser, his arrest, the evidence seized and additional witnesses
interviewed.271 That same day, Mr. Fesser drove to the WLPD to retrieve his cell phone after he
was summoned by WLPD detectives to retrieve his belongings. During this contact, Det. Reeves
told Mr. Fesser he was fired from A&B Towing and not to return to the business.272 Later that
day, Mr. Benson texted Det. Reeves pictures of documents relating to a Mercedes he apparently
believed may connect Mr. Fesser to additional criminal conduct.273 This information was not
included in Det. Reeves police reports, and it is unclear exactly what it means, or what
investigative measures, if any, were taken based on the information.
The Fesser criminal case was dormant for a few weeks until the West Linn Police
Department learned the Multnomah County District Attorney’s office did not have the police
reports. Starting on March 15, 2017, there was a chain of emails from Lt. Stradley to members of
the Portland Police Bureau, asking for help in trying to figure out what happened with the
reports.274 These conversations continued into the summer months. Lt. Stradley indicated that
somebody who contacted him said, “nobody can find the case” or “the case is lost” so in the
Summer of 2017, he contacted the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office to inquire about

265

Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/26/2017 at 10:28 am.
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/27/2017 at 8:17 am.
267
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/27/2017 at 3:44 pm.
268
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pg. 220.
269
Text Messages between Eric Benson and Hunter Caputo.
270
Text Messages between Eric Benson and Hunter Caputo, 2/27/20 at 3:21 pm.
271
West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves, WLPD Case 2017-270, pg. 6.
272
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Eric Benson, pgs. 219-220 (Benson claimed that Det. Reeves fired Mr.
Fesser); Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Det. Reeves, pg. 201
273
Text Messages between Mr. Benson to Det. Reeves, 2/28/2017 from 8:26 am – 9:29 am.
274
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Lt. James Stradley, pgs. 72 – 73.
266

Page 30 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

it.275 The reports were eventually submitted, but the case was initially declined because the
Deputy District Attorney needed additional information to further assess the case.
On May 23, 2017, Mr. Fesser filed a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries
(BOLI) against Mr. Benson and A&B Towing. The next day, BOLI sent Mr. Benson a letter
notifying him about the complaint. Mr. Benson’s attorney would later respond to the claim by
stating Mr. Fesser was responsible for the theft of hundreds and thousands of dollars from the
business. On May 31, 2017, Mr. Benson emailed a copy of the BOLI complaint to Chief Timeus
and Det. Reeves and asked for a call.276 When asked about this in his deposition, Chief Timeus
claimed “he did not remember,” but Det. Reeves confirmed he not only received the email and
complaint, but further revealed there “may have been” multiple communications with Mr.
Benson about the civil suit.277 On July 3, 2017, the BOLI investigator dismissed the complaint by
concluding there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim.
On August 1, 2017, the Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney (DDA) assigned to
the Fesser case authored a Decline Memorandum after reading Det. Reeves’ investigative
reports. The DDA requested more information/documentation regarding the alleged thefts. On
August 17, 2017, Brian Dunst, the employee with A&B Towing who played a large role in the
investigation, passed away.
On September 19, 2017, Mr. Fesser filed his racial discrimination lawsuit against Mr.
Benson and A&B Towing in Multnomah County Circuit Court.278 On September 22, 2017, Det.
Reeves emailed the Multnomah County prosecutor inquiring about the issues with the case and
the reasons why it was not moving forward. The DDA responded the same day and essentially
re-iterated what he put in his Decline Memorandum from August. On October 5, 2017, Det.
Reeves emailed the DDA and provided additional witness contact information.
On November 9, 2017, the DDA presented the Fesser case to a Multnomah County
Grand Jury.279 The witnesses at the grand jury were Det. Reeves, Eric Benson, Nijaz Omerovic
and Marcus Olmos. The alleged crimes involving Mr. Olmos were from the November 26, 2016,
auction where he purchased a 2007 Toyota Yaris. As for Mr. Omerovic, the alleged crimes
occurred on October 22, 2016 involving the sale of a 2004 Toyota Matrix (theft of $1,240.00), an
incident on November 26, 2016, involving the sale of a 2013 Honda Civic (theft of $1,370), and
an incident on January 28, 2017, involving the sale of a 2013 Volkswagon (theft of $1,050).280
Mr. Omerovic stated in his deposition that prior to the grand jury, Mr. Benson called him and

275

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Lt. James Stradley, pgs. 103-105.
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Chief Terry Timeus, pgs. 143-144; Transcript of Videotaped Deposition
of Det. Tony Reeves, pgs. 214-217.
277
Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Chief Terry Timeus, pg. 143-144; Transcript of Videotaped Deposition
of Det. Reeves, pg. 214-217.
278
See Fesser v. Benson, 17CV40817.
279
State v. Michael Fesser, 17CR74881.
280
State v. Michael Fesser, 17CR47881 (Indictment); West Linn Police Report dated 2/24/2017 by Det. Reeves,
WLPD Case 2017-270, pgs. 3, 4 and 7.
276

Page 31 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

asked him to show up.281 Mr. Fesser was indicted on four counts of Theft in the First Degree and
a warrant was issued for his arrest.282
On December 20, 2017, Mr. Benson contacted Det. Reeves and Lt. Stradley asking why
Mr. Fesser had not been arrested. In response, Lt. Stradley suggested Det. Reeves make a flyer
and send it out to other police agencies to notify them about the active warrant to help facilitate
an arrest. Mr. Fesser was subsequently arrested on January 17, 2018 and later arraigned in
Multnomah County Circuit Court.
On January 17th, 2018, Mr. Fesser’s civil lawyers received the previously described text
messages from Mr. Benson’s phone revealing his communications with Chief Timeus and Det.
Reeves during the Fesser investigation. On January 23, 2018, Mr. Benson was deposed by Mr.
Fesser’s civil attorney. During the deposition, the attorneys learned more about the relationship
between Mr. Benson and representatives from the West Linn Police Department, which includes
their investigation of the February 25, 2017, auction.
The text messages were subsequently provided to the Multnomah County DDA handling
the Fesser prosecution. The DDA recognized the obvious problems created by the text messages,
and on March 23, 2018, the prosecution did not oppose a civil compromise in the case, which
lead to a dismissal of the charges. The civil compromise consisted of a settlement in the
employment discrimination case against Mr. Benson and A&B Towing, where they agreed to
pay Mr. Fesser total compensation of $415,000, ($172,662 was attorney fees, with the rest being
paid to Mr. Fesser). For an alleged victim who repeatedly asserted that a defendant had stolen
hundreds of thousands of dollars from him to agree to a civil compromise wherein the alleged
victim pays the defendant hundreds and thousands of dollars, and receives nothing in return, is a
highly unusual resolution in a criminal case.
Given the evidence collected during the Benson/A&B Towing litigation, Mr. Fesser filed
a tort notice on June 4, 2018, stating his intent to sue the West Linn Police Department and the
personnel involved in his criminal case. On July 16, 2018, the West Linn Police Department
notified Det. Reeves they were doing an internal investigation and the next day he needed to
appear for a disciplinary interview relating to his conduct during the Fesser investigation.
On July 17, 2018, Lt. Odis Rollins with the West Linn Police Department conducted an
interview with Det. Reeves pursuant to the internal investigation. The interview was recorded
and lasted a total of fifteen minutes. During the interview, Det. Reeves was asked direct and
leading questions. These inquires included the following:
•
•
•

281
282

Lt. Rollins: “During this investigation did you send any text messages to Benson that
were explicitly racist in nature of content?”
Det. Reeves: “No.” (1:40).
Lt. Rollins: “Did you send any text messages that were explicitly homophobic in nature
or content?”

Transcript of Videotaped Deposition of Nijaz Omerovic, pgs. 95 – 96.
State v. Michael Fesser, 17CR74881.

Page 32 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

•
•
•

Det. Reeves: “No, not that I know it, no I don’t think so.” (1:51).
Lt. Rollins: “Did you send any text messages that were explict in nature or content?”
(2:00)
Det. Reeves: Stated that during the (2/25) auction, he called Det. Timeus because they
(he and Mr. Benson) are good friends and the chief told him (Mr. Benson) “not to be a
pussy.” The detective admitted that he was definitely not professional in some of the text
messages and admitted to engaging in “that sort of banter” but claimed it was not
homophobic/sexual nature.

During the initial portion of the interview, Det. Reeves denied having any face-to-face
communcation or telephonic conversations with Mr. Benson that were racist, homophobic or
sexual in nature. He also talked about seizing Mr. Fesser’s cell phone on February 25, 2017, to
write a search warrant. Det. Reeves said he secured the cell phone in his office, but eventually
decided not to write the warrant, and ultimatley returned the phone and other items to Mr. Fesser.
The interview then stopped after about eleven minutes into the conversation with Det.
Reeves, along with the recording. After an unknown period of time, the recording is turned back
on, Det. Reeves re-engages with Lt. Rollins and said that he remembered Mr. Benson sending a
text about “Nigger-knocking on the door” and that was it. Det. Reeves also said he did not
acknowledge this text in any way.
The internal investigation into Det. Reeves’ conduct in the Fesser case included this
interview, an interview with Det. Michael Boyd, who assisted with the case, and a review of the
text messages between Det. Reeves and Mr. Benson, the alleged victim. On July 24, 2018, Capt.
Hennelly issued a written reprimand as the discipline for Det. Reeves in this matter. However, he
did not sustain findings of a policy violation related to the West Linn Police Department’s
“Discrimination, Oppression or Favoritism” policy. He did, however, sustain a violation of the
“Use of obscene, indecent, profane, or derogatory language while on duty, or in uniform” policy.
Lt. Rollins specifically found that “in text messaging with Mr. Benson, your use of the term
“PUSSY” and the expression “TEA BAGGING” both are inappropriate. You were speaking to a
crime victim during the course of your official duties as a West Linn Police Officer.”
On August 17, 2018, the civil lawsuit against the West Linn Police Department and its
personnel were removed to federal court. During the course of the next year, the parties filed
numerous interrogatories and held depositions of witnesses to include Michael Fesser, Eric
Benson, Det. Reeves, Chief Timeus, Lt. Stradley, Det. Boyd, Capt. Neil Hennelly, Mr. Marlow
and Mr. Omerovic.
V. Analysis
The following section outlines the analysis by the CCDA regarding the conduct by the
officers involved in the West Linn Police Department’s investigation into Michael Fesser. The
analysis identifies misconduct and inappropriate behavior that supports the conclusion that this
investigation lacked transparency, honesty and any sense of fair play. The CCDA documents its
specific conclusions about Brady violations in both the summary and conclusion sections of this
report.
Page 33 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

A. Why was the WLPD Handling this Investigation?
It is highly unusual for a law enforcement agency to undertake a criminal investigation
outside of its jurisdiction without either being invited by another agency, starting an investigation
in its own jurisdiction that ultimately leads to another county, or being part of a multijurisdictional task force. It is not inherently inappropriate for a police department to perform a
service and investigate a case for a resident who could not get the police agency in the
appropriate jurisdiction to evaluate an allegation of theft of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
However, in the rare instance where this might occur, one would expect the investigative reports
to reflect why an agency was investigating allegations of criminal activity that is not even
prosecutable in that agency's home county. The impropriety is compounded when that
resident/alleged victim is the Police Chief's friend, yet there is no mention of this personal
relationship in the police reports. It then becomes even more concerning when the investigation
is almost complete before the option of referring the case to a more appropriate agency—like one
without such a conflict—had been fully vetted. It also bears mentioning that during the civil
litigation, the WLPD could not identify a single case where it investigated a case of employee
theft outside of its jurisdiction. 283
The statements by Chief Timeus and Det. Reeves characterizing the WLPD’s handling of
the Fesser investigation as standard investigative practice—when it had absolutely no ties to the
City of West Linn other than Mr. Benson’s friendship with Chief Timeus—ring hollow. Our
collective experience in reviewing thousands of criminal cases demonstrates that the reasons for
such an unusual investigation should be documented in investigative reports.
It appears the WLPD’s involvement in this investigation was driven by Chief Timeus’
personal friendship with Mr. Benson. Chief Timeus personally assigned this investigation to Det.
Reeves shortly after he was contacted by Mr. Benson, and Det. Reeves almost immediately
began engaging in unprofessional and questionable interactions with Mr. Benson.
B. Omissions in the Investigation and Report Writing
Law enforcement officers must be detailed in their investigations and report writing.
Deficiencies in report writing, investigations or evidence collection is rarely a basis to initiate a
Brady review. However, the information omitted from the reports in the Fesser investigation is
stark and concerning. The failure to include much of this information was not borne of
negligence or inexperience. It appears to have been done in bad faith.
As mentioned above, there is no indication whatsoever in the reports as to why the
WLPD was involved in this investigation to begin with. This information could be used to
impeach the motives of the WLPD for being involved in the first place. Someone reading the

283

Defendant West Linn Police Department Response to Plaintiff’s Third Set of Interrogatories, Michael Fesser v.
The City of West Linn, Terry Timeus, Tony Reeves, Mike Boyd and Mike Stradley, Civil No. 3:18-cv-01516-SB,
Interrogatory No. 15.

Page 34 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

investigative reports would believe that WLPD handling this investigation was just in the normal
course of business.
Mr. Benson is on record asserting that Mr. Fesser was responsible for well over $100,000
in losses. He even requested over $100,000 in restitution in the course of the criminal
prosecution. Financial records were collected from auctions preceding the dates of the thefts that
formed the basis for the indictment, yet the WLPD made no effort to do a rudimentary analysis
of thefts that were alleged to have occurred prior to November of 2016. Thus, the theme of the
whole investigation was that Mr. Fesser was responsible for stealing hundreds and thousands of
dollars, but there was no evidence to support that conclusion. Det. Reeves also did not consider
the fact that Mr. Benson had no consistent manner in which to track auction sales, as customers
were not required to sign documentation reflecting the price paid for a vehicle in these all cash
transactions.
It is still unclear how or why Mr. Benson initially suspected Mr. Fesser was responsible
for any alleged theft. In the investigative reports, Mr. Benson states he noticed he was not
making as much money from the auctions as he felt he should have in the Summer of 2016 and
he called other similar businesses to compare what was happening in their auctions. In the civil
depositions, Mr. Benson denied calling other businesses. In the rush to complete the
investigation and make an arrest, Det. Reeves accepted Mr. Benson’s statements at face value
and without question. Quite simply, the WLPD decided to initiate a criminal investigation when
there was no actual evidence that a crime was taking place, and the WLPD acknowledged as
much during the civil litigation.284
Det. Reeves’ initial report states his first contact with Mr. Benson occurred on February
6, 2017. This is a claim he repeated in his written discovery responses during the civil litigation
and in his deposition. However, it is clear there were substantive contacts between Mr. Benson
and Det. Reeves in January of 2017. Mr. Benson had already offered to front cash as part of the
ill-conceived “sting” operation no later than February 1, 2017, as evidenced by the email from
Det. Reeves to PPB Det. Becker. Therefore, it is obvious there were more substantive contacts
and interviews of Mr. Benson taking place that were not included in the investigative reports.
The investigative reports state that Mr. Omerovic contacted Mr. Benson about Mr. Fesser
and had information supporting the theft allegation. Det. Reeves subsequently interviewed Mr.
Omerovic, who allegedly told Det. Reeves that Mr. Fesser had been stealing from the auction for
years. According to the report, Omerovic further stated he had seen Mr. Fesser with two auction
sheets, one recording the real sales price and the other recording a fraudulent sales price. Mr.
Omerovic also stated that he had known this for several years, but didn’t report it because he was
fearful of Mr. Fesser. There is no detail in the report regarding why Mr. Omerovic was
contacting Mr. Benson in the first place, how he actually came to know Mr. Fesser had two

284

Transcript of Videotapes Deposition of Det. Tony Reeves, pgs. 81-82 (Det. Reeves testified that Mr. Benson’s
initial suspicions were not evidence), and 172-173 (the detective admitted that he simply accepted Mr. Benson’s
assertions without question); also see Defendant West Linn Police Department’s Response to Plaintiff’s First
Request for Admission, Michael Fesser v. West Linn Police Department; Terry Timeus; Tony Reeves; and Mike Boyd,
Civil No. 3:18-cv-1516-BR, Response #2, pg. 2.

Page 35 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

auction sheets, or what Mr. Fesser was writing on these documents about the prices paid for the
cars at the auctions.
In his civil deposition, Mr. Omerovic told a much different story. He said Mr. Benson
initiated contact with him to discuss Mr. Fesser. Mr. Omerovic further testified he had no preexisting knowledge that Mr. Fesser was allegedly stealing from the auctions prior to Mr. Benson
contacting him. Mr. Omerovic said the first he heard of it was at this meeting with Mr. Benson
and he never stated he saw Mr. Fesser with two separate auction sheets. He later contradicted
himself during questioning from WLPD’s counsel by saying he did provide some of this
information during the meeting with WLPD detectives, and then offered additional
contradictions when pressed on the issue about what he actually told detectives. Accordingly,
there are vast discrepancies between Mr. Omerovic’s statements in the investigative reports and
his civil deposition.
Furthermore, it was revealed in the deposition that Mr. Benson asked Mr. Omerovic to
attend the 2/25 auction as part of this undercover operation. It was clear Det. Reeves had preexisting knowledge of this fact from his text messages with Mr. Benson on 2/25. Det. Reeves did
not include any information in the investigative report concerning the role Mr. Omerovic was
supposed to play in the 2/25 auction.
By all accounts, Brian Dunst was an important witness in this investigation. It was clear
he and Mr. Benson were working together to collect and develop much of the evidence. By
2/11/17, Det. Reeves’ report states that Mr. Dunst had a “friend” attend an auction and allowed
Mr. Dunst to listen in by using his phone and recording the auction process. Based on the
information collected by Mr. Dunst, Det. Reeves concluded Mr. Fesser was responsible for
approximately $1000 in thefts on that date alone. Det. Reeves accepted and adopted these
conclusions without question, yet did not conduct follow up investigation, or include information
in his report that would be necessary in assessing the provability of the allegation.
The reports do not identify the “friend” who was actually at the auction, and there was no
attempt to interview this individual. At this point, Det. Reeves had been involved in this
investigation for several weeks and had already discussed a tentative plan with Mr. Benson
where he would front investigators cash to purchase automobiles at auctions. It is hard to believe
Det. Reeves had no prior knowledge that Mr. Dunst would be taking on the independent “sting”
operation on 2/11. A failure to include even a basic explanation as to how the 2/11 auction plan
came to fruition leaves more concerning questions than answers.
The investigative reports also fail to mention Angela Palmer. They state Mr. Benson
reported an “employee” said that her boyfriend, Marcos Olmos, bought cars at auction for a
particular price, leading Mr. Benson to cross-check the auction sheets and discover
discrepancies. During the investigation, Det. Reeves never interviewed Ms. Palmer, nor did he
determine why she approached Mr. Benson with this information in the first place.
The investigative reports state that Det. Reeves “contacted several more witnesses” after
the arrest of Mr. Fesser. One such witness was Robin Palmer, an employee of NW Metals, which
is a business that purchases cars at auction from A&B Towing. Det. Reeves approached Mr.
Page 36 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

Palmer about getting records to investigate additional thefts. Due to a statement made by Mr.
Fesser after his arrest, however, the detective automatically concluded that Mr. Palmer would not
cooperate. He also made no effort to engage in additional fact gathering or obtain records from
NW Metals. Of more concern is a text to Mr. Benson on 2/27/17, where Det. Reeves says he
found three more witnesses that would confirm that Mr. Fesser was stealing. The investigative
reports fail to identity any of these witnesses and the information they could provide.
Det. Reeves met with Mr. Fesser at the WLPD to return Mr. Fessers’ phone and cash
seized on 2/25. The investigative reports do not document these items as being seized or checked
into the property room. During this contact, Det. Reeves essentially placed himself in the
position of being the Human Resources Manager of A&B Towing by firing Mr. Fesser from his
job. None of this was documented in his report. As a matter of fact, not a single interview of any
witness, including Mr. Fesser, was audio recorded.
Furthermore, there were lengthy, substantial, and offensive texts between Det. Reeves
and Mr. Benson while Det. Reeves surveilled the 2/25 auction. These texts contained substantial
evidence of improper bias on the part of Mr. Benson. Had the Multnomah County DDA been
aware of these texts when analyzing the criminal case, it likely would not have been presented to
a grand jury.
Detective Reeves also failed to document in his reports anything that happened at the
2/25 auction, including the fact that he was party to a surreptitious recording of Mr. Fesser. The
failure to include any such information denigrates any sense of fair play that one would expect to
be present in a criminal investigation.
C. The Text Messages
The totality of the text messages between Det. Reeves and Mr. Benson eradicate any idea
this was a fair, unbiased search for the truth, supported by competent investigative decisionmaking. Det. Reeves’ unprofessional and far too familiar banter with Mr. Benson demonstrates
an investigative bias and lack of critical analysis that existed from day one in this investigation.
The following portions of the conversation were most striking.
In the midst of Mr. Benson’s racist remarks, Det. Reeves attempts to assure Mr. Benson
by telling him an arrest will help defeat a racial discrimination lawsuit. Det. Reeves would later
state in his civil deposition that he believed he had probable cause to arrest Mr. Fesser prior to
this text exchange. However, this is immaterial. At this point, the detective was unaware of Mr.
Fesser’s experiences at A&B Towing, yet he chose to express that an arrest could help defeat any
legitimate claim Mr. Fesser may have in this regard.
When Mr. Benson expresses second thoughts about following through with the arrest,
Det. Reeves contacted Chief Timeus, who then told him to tell Mr. Benson he was a “pussy,”
and Det. Reeves eagerly complied. Det. Reeves also told Mr. Benson that his insurance would
cover any lawsuit Mr. Fesser might bring. This type of communication in the midst of a serious
criminal investigation gives us zero confidence it was a search for the truth. In our collective
Page 37 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

experience evaluating criminal cases, having an alleged victim play such an active role in the
investigation is unusual and happened because of Mr. Benson’s friendship with Chief Timeus.
On the heels of Mr. Benson expressing his misgivings about the arrest, Det. Reeves again
tries to assure him by stating he has six witnesses. Mr. Benson responds, “they are dirty.” During
the civil depositions, everyone claimed a lack of understanding of the meaning behind this
statement. The context of the statement indicates that Mr. Benson did not have trust in the
witnesses he provided to Det. Reeves. Since Mr. Benson was the contact point for these
individuals, it begs the question why Det. Reeves did not follow up with Mr. Benson about why
he believed they were “dirty.”
Finally, Det. Reeves intentionally erased these text messages. He testified he did it
because he thought the investigation was complete. He erased the messages, however, before the
grand jury convened. This was highly relevant and exculpatory evidence that should have been
preserved and provided to the prosecution.
D. Providing Documents Seized in the Search of Mr. Fesser’s Car to Mr. Benson
Det. Reeves seized legal paperwork from Mr. Fesser and provided it directly to Mr.
Benson in an effort to give him further insight about the civil lawsuit Mr. Benson feared he was
planning. Of course, this was one of many things not documented in the police reports; which
was not an accident. Chief Timeus was aware this took place and did nothing to correct conduct
that was highly inappropriate. This is intolerable.
VI. Findings and Conclusions
Each of the issues discussed in this report cannot be considered in isolation, but must be
viewed with consideration toward their cumulative effect. The conclusions in this report are not
intended to signal that failing to include certain information in investigative reports or retain
certain evidence will always lead to a finding of misconduct. However, the totality of the
circumstances in this particular case indicate a troubling pattern of deceit by omission. Det.
Reeves and Chief Timeus failed to adhere to their Brady obligations in this case. Their conduct
was not merely negligent, inadvertent or the result of a momentary lapse of judgment. It
continued throughout the course of the investigation. It reflects negatively on their honesty,
judgment and sense of fair play that every suspect and victim deserves.
Concerning Det. Reeves, the CCDA specifically finds that his conduct was of such a
nature and degree that our office will not call him as a witness in any criminal case. We
find that he committed the following misconduct:
o Failure to Preserve Exculpatory Evidence: Det. Reeves intentionally deleted
exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the form of text message
conversations between Eric Benson and himself that include, but are not
limited to, racial epithets/slurs, a motivation to fabricate the theft allegations,
and an appearance of improper collusion between the parties to defeat
Michael Fesser’s civil claims.
Page 38 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

o Unlawful Recording: Det. Reeves was complicit in recording statements
from Mr. Fesser and other individuals during a February 25, 2017, auction
without the parties’ consent.
o Improper Seizure and Disclosure of Confidential Attorney-Client
Information: Det. Reeves seized legal paperwork from Mr. Fesser
documenting and discussing his legal intentions and information about the
filing of a racial discrimination lawsuit against the alleged victim, Mr.
Benson. Det. Reeves then provided Mr. Benson with some of this paperwork.
His actions were inappropriate and a violation of Mr. Fesser’s attorney-client
privilege as this was a document Mr. Fesser was preparing with help from his
attorney. Even if the document was in some way not considered to be
privileged, it doesn’t change the fact that Det. Reeves seized this letter,
didn’t document it in his report and immediately provided it to Mr. Benson.
His actions in this regard give us significant doubt about his motivations and
integrity.
o Failure to Disclose Exculpatory/Impeachment Evidence: In additional to the
text messages, the detective failed to disclose or document additional
relevant exculpatory/impeachment evidence that includes, but is not limited
to:
§

Bias/impeachment evidence about Mr. Benson’s fear that Mr. Fesser
was going to file a racial discrimination lawsuit.

§

Mr. Benson’s use of racial slurs and epithets.

§

Failure to include information about surveillance of the February 25,
2017 auction, during which Mr. Fesser did not commit any criminal
act, and destruction of notes relating to that auction.

§

Failure to include information about Chief Timeus’ relationship with
Eric Benson in investigative reports.

The weight of the evidence is that these omissions were not merely negligent,
inadvertent or due to a lack of experience. The effect was to mislead, as a reasonable
investigator would be aware that this information is relevant and material in a criminal
investigation.
The Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office also find that Chief Timeus
engaged in the following misconduct:
o Disclosure of Confidential Attorney-Client Information: Chief Timeus was
aware of and therefore complicit in the disclosure of legal paperwork seized
from Mr. Fesser and provided to Mr. Benson. Chief Timeus and Det.
Page 39 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

Reeves’ actions were inappropriate and a violation of Mr. Fesser’s attorneyclient privilege. Even if the document was in some way not considered to be
privileged, it doesn’t change the fact that Chief Timeus was aware Det.
Reeves seized this letter and immediately provided it to Mr. Benson. His
actions in this regard give us significant doubt about his motivations and
integrity as he should have immediately recognized this conduct was
improper. In addition, the act of delivering such a letter is further evidence of
the collusion that existed throughout this investigation between the chief, the
detective and the alleged victim Mr. Benson.
Chief Timeus was responsible for initiating a criminal investigation outside the City of West
Linn based on a personal relationship, which is highly improper. This investigation was initiated
despite the absence of evidence that Mr. Fesser was engaging in criminal conduct, and the
WLPD acknowledged as much during the civil litigation. Chief Timeus’ failure of leadership
created a culture that allowed this to happen.
The analysis in this case also included a review of former West Linn Police Lt.
Mike Stradley’s conduct in addition to Detective Mike Boyd. There is currently an
investigation by the City of Portland’s Independent Police Review oversight agency that is
examining the interaction between PPB and WLPD. We will reserve our final assessment
regarding Lt. Stradley until that investigation is complete. We also do not find substantial
evidence that Det. Boyd committed Brady misconduct. The District Attorney’s Office will
nonetheless provide all of the information in this investigation to the defense in any case
where he is a witness.
The Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office is reviewing 40 active criminal cases
where Det. Reeves played a role in the investigation. Any case that cannot be proven without his
testimony will be dismissed. Information about these cases will be released after proper
notification has been made to defense counsel and any victim that may be impacted. The District
Attorney’s Office will also conduct a review of approximately 500 closed cases where Det.
Reeves is mentioned or played a role in the investigation. Dismissal of criminal cases is never a
desired outcome, and guilty individuals will be the beneficiary of this decision, but the integrity
of the criminal justice system is paramount.
We are referring this matter to the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training
(DPSST) with the recommendation that Det. Reeves’ and Chief Timeus’ police certifications be
revoked.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Page 40 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser

 Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office

Pursuant to the policy of the CCDA, Det. Reeves and Chief Timeus may seek
reconsideration through an appeal to the District Attorney and submit any new or additional
information they believe is relevant.

_______________________________
Chris Owen
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Clackamas County DA’s Office

________________________________
Rusty Amos
Senior Deputy District Attorney
Clackamas County DA’s Office

________________________________
Scott Healy
Senior Deputy District Attorney
Clackamas County DA’s Office

Page 41 of 41– Brady v. Maryland Report Concerning The West Linn Police Department’s Investigation
of Michael Fesser