TAINTING CRIMINAL JUSTICE INVESTIGATION

 June 25, 2026 letter to Criminal Justice Training Commission from Donna Blaine:

One of the subjects of this investigation, Rodger Funk, through his attorney, was allowed to inject three highly prejudicial materials into the CJTC process to the Investigative Division Manager, Mike Devine: the AGO declination letter, a state senator’s political attack on the complainants, and an unverified, vague, and loaded claim that the FBI had “flagged” the complainants. 

All these materials submitted were irrelevant and prejudicial. A State Senator was neither a witness, a complainant or a respondent to these matters. To allow such a person to wield political power in a legitimate complaint is reckless and highly damaging to the complainants. What safeguards are in place so that the new investigator isn’t star struck by a Senator’s letter and improperly influenced by her political clout? The AGO declination letter is also highly irrelevant because the allegations against Funk were not about lack of prosecution; it was about Funk intentionally disregarding the rights of the complainants and putting those complainants’ lives in harm’s way. The submission of such inflammatory and irrelevant statements regarding the FBI is highly prejudicial and damaging to the complainants. Investigators at all levels of government know the pecking order of law enforcement. The message was clear. If the FBI says so, it must be true, and there is nothing to see here. Once again, these statements were completely irrelevant to the complaints at hand. What does “flagging” mean..that we put in complaints? It has no bearing on the complaints, yet was used as a weapon against complainants. 

A defended police chief has every right to have an attorney. But the CJTC does not have the right to let that attorney quietly feed the investigation one-sided, politically loaded material while the actual complainants are left unheard. 

That is not neutrality. That is not due process. That is how an investigation becomes contaminated and tainted. 

I also noticed the note at the bottom of Mike Devine’s email to Chief Funk: “Note – email is considered a public document and subject to public disclosure.” 

That note raises an obvious and serious question. 

After being reminded that email is a public record, did Chief Funk move sensitive communications about this investigation to his cell phone? Was there a recording, memo, log, or written summary of Chief Funk’s call with Mike Devine? Was that call placed in the investigative file? Or was this handled like Chief Funk’s call with Chief Huffman — another critical conversation involving an active investigation, with no recording and no meaningful record? 

When a police chief under investigation is communicating about that investigation outside written email, the public has a right to know whether those conversations were preserved or whether they disappeared into private phone calls.