Deschutes County Sheriff's Office cruiser

A Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office deputy was not disciplined for excessive use of force for an incident wherein his police dog bit a bystander in 2024, despite an internal investigation’s findings that the deputy violated agency policy — and the sheriff’s office won’t say why. 

“I couldn’t really comment on any of that just based on his impending civil litigation, and so I can’t really comment on his employment,” Undersheriff Aaron Wells told The Bulletin on Wednesday regarding Deputy Ryan McNee.

McNee is accused in a civil lawsuit of assaulting a woman during a traffic stop, but that litigation is unrelated to the dog incident in 2024. Also unrelated are three other internal investigations of McNee involving high-speed pursuits and violating traffic stop protocols.

The internal investigation of the 2024 dog bite incident concluded that McNee falsified his report, used excessive force, failed to turn on his body-worn camera and did not make the proper announcements that he was about to release a police dog. This incident happened on March 3 during a high-speed chase in Crook County that McNee was called in to assist on.

Disappearing findings

Investigator Sgt. Blair Barkhurst found that McNee was intentionally dishonest when he falsified his report, but that finding was overturned by Sheriff Kent van der Kamp just days after he took office on Jan. 1. Van der Kamp himself is currently under scrutiny for lying while under oath in Deschutes County Circuit Court, and the state Board of Public Safety Standards and Training could uphold a policy committee’s recommendation to permanently revoke van der Kamp’s law enforcement credentials for dishonesty.

But the use of force accusations against McNee disappear entirely somewhere between Barkhurst’s final report and Wells’ disciplinary recommendation to van der Kamp. 

Documents obtained by The Bulletin confirm that McNee was given notice on Sept. 25, 2024 that he was being investigated for violating Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office policies dictating the use of physical force, law enforcement canines, mobile recording equipment and sheriff’s office standards. However Wells’ recommendation and van der Kamp’s final decision only reference the latter three policies.

The discipline issued to McNee included removal from the police dog unit, a 12-month probation, a mandatory use of force training and loss of two days pay. McNee was also issued a last-chance letter, which means he must not violate any additional Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office policies during his probation or else he will be fired.

Shortly after the discrepancy was pointed out to van der Kamp, he told a reporter his first thought was that something got lost in the shuffle between administrations, but he could not say whether that was true. Van der Kamp promised to look into the issue.

Oregon law says police officers who are dishonest should be fired. 

The Commission on Statewide Law Enforcement Standards of Conduct and Discipline says that “a disciplinary body shall impose upon a law enforcement officer disciplinary action of termination upon a finding that an officer engaged in misconduct demonstrating a lack of good moral character.” Untruthfulness — which Barkhurst found McNee engaged in — is explicitly listed in the statute as an example of poor moral character.

Wells also declined to comment on this matter, as well as whether or not the 2024 internal investigation’s findings were forwarded to the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training. However, the department’s disciplinary database does include reference to van der Kamp’s final discipline of McNee.

“I know that you have a story, and you have readers, and they have a desire to know these kinds of questions. But I just — I have to follow our policy. I can’t comment. The main parties are involved in litigation, so I can’t really comment on how or why that would involve Deputy McNee.”