Sheriff refuses subpoena in Taser case; judge accedes

• Dutchess sheriff refuses to release a Taser policy -- though it and 22 police agencies did so before

The Dutchess County Sheriff’s Office refused to comply with a subpoena in a criminal case involving the use of an electrical stun device called a Taser, telling a Town of Poughkeepsie judge, in a letter last January from the district attorney’s office, it “will not turn over" a policy on when officers are to prepare reports on its use.

The case involves criminal charges of driving while intoxicated and resisting arrest against Joseph Runza of the Town of Poughkeepsie, who was stunned twice with the so-called “less-lethal” device during a traffic stop Feb. 16, 2014. Runza has filed a civil lawsuit alleging the use of excessive force in his arrest; the Sheriff's Office maintains the force was justified.

Justice Paul O. Sullivan had signed a subpoena Jan. 27 ordering the Sheriff’s Office to provide “any SOPS [standard operating procedures], orders, memos and similar documents…regarding the types of reports required to be filled out upon the use of a Tazer (sic)…” along with any Taser-use report filed the night of Runza’s arrest.

But in a Jan. 28 letter, the Dutchess County District Attorney’s Office, acting on behalf of the Sheriff’s Office, said no Taser-use report was filed and refused the judge’s order for the policy particulars. In the letter, Kevin P. Irwin, a senior assistant district attorney, wrote that if the policy was known, "the criminal element could take steps to circumvent the procedures and thus put the officers' safety at stake." Sullivan, who subsequently recused himself from the case for an unrelated reason, declined to comment on the subpoena, though both sides in the case say he acceded to the sheriff’s department’s wishes.

“Although ignoring a judicial subpoena is criminal contempt, the DA did nothing,” said Runza’s attorney, Anthony Giordano. “Had a defense witness ignored a judicial subpoena issued by the prosecutor, their position would likely have been far different.”

Matthew Weishaupt, the District Attorney's chief of special prosecutions, said in an emailed response to the Poughkeepsie Journal, “my understanding is further argument, ‘hearing’ was had in relation to the SOP’s and the judge, based on the argument, did not require such disclosure.” He disputed that officials refused to honor the subpoena. “What we asked for was a re-argument,” he said. “That’s a common process.”

‘Endanger life’

The Sheriff’s Office also denied a Poughkeepsie Journal Freedom of Information request for its Taser policy, even though it had previously provided the policy for a 2012 series of articles on Taser use. In a June 9 letter, the office said releasing it could “endanger the life or safety of the public or a deputy sheriff.”

“(I)f person(s) intending on committing a crime…know how the police will react or respond, they can plan on how to defeat such a response,” the sheriff’s denial stated.

A review of the sheriff's policy provided previously suggests it may have been violated in three ways in Runza's case:

• The document states that a “Taser Usage Report shall be completed after every deployment.” Although the department does not dispute using a Taser on Runza, Irwin, the assistant DA, said in a letter last January to Justice Sullivan, provided by Giordano, that the officer who shot the Taser "did not fill out any paperwork" on its use.

• While the policy dictates that emergency medical technicians be summoned in "all instances" when a Taser is deployed, none was called in Runza's case, he and his attorney said. Had EMTs attended Runza, his injuries would have been independently documented, Giordano contends.

• According to the policy, photographs must be taken of Taser "impact sites," including marks from twin Taser darts shot at a distance or those inflicted when the device is held against the skin in so-called "stun mode." Six sheriff’s photos provided to Giordano include twin chest marks where the darts hit; Runza’s own photos, dated hours after his release, include what appears to be several marks on his back that were not shown in the photos provided by the sheriff to him.

Deputies acknowledged in court and the arrest report that Runza was shocked a second time in stun-mode in that area of his body.

The sheriff’s office also denied a Journal request for Taser-use documents by any deputy since 2012, even though it released similar records in 39 other Taser cases for the news organization’s 2012 Taser investigative reports. The office’s May 28 denial states that each Taser-use report “once reviewed becomes part of a deputy’s personnel file and is protected” under law from disclosure. County Attorney James Fedorchak rejected a Journal appeal on June 24.

Mary Beth Pfeiffer: 845-437-4869; mbpfeiff@gannett.com. Twitter: @marybethpf