Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rathdrum resident raises long‑running concerns about Coeur d'Alene police cooperation with county agencies
Summary
Justin Nagle of Rathdrum used public comment to allege recurring problems with Coeur d'Alene police coordination and record transfers with the Kootenai County Sheriff's Office and Idaho State Police and asked the council to examine interagency programs and file handling; the council did not take immediate action at the meeting.
Justin Nagle, a Rathdrum resident, told the council on May 6 that he has repeatedly tried to obtain answers from law enforcement agencies about cross‑jurisdictional policing, alleged missing investigative files, and whether city officers acting off‑site were paid or properly authorized.
Nagle said he had long sought clarity on whether Coeur d'Alene officers conducting activity in Kootenai County had formal contracts or whether the city had reimbursed officers for that work. He also alleged historic problems with investigative files missing from the Kootenai County Sheriff’s Office that had been uncovered during ATF inquiries, and he said those episodes raised concerns about honesty and transparency among the county and state agencies he mentioned. “I can't name a job where you can lie to your boss and keep your job. It's totally unacceptable,” he said.
What council said: The transcript records Nagle’s persistent questions and his request that someone “get on it,” but it does not show the council or staff committing to a specific follow‑up, investigation timeline, or open‑records request during this meeting.
Why it matters: Nagle framed his remarks as a public‑safety and accountability concern tied to record management and interagency cooperation. The city did not respond at the meeting with factual corrections, nor did the police chief appear in public comment to address the claims.
Next steps: The transcript does not record subsequent action. If the council or city staff choose to follow up, typical next steps would include directing staff to review records, confirm intergovernmental contracts, or report back publicly; none of those directions are recorded in the May 6 proceedings.
