Colling, county claim no tampering occurred with body cam footage

Then-sheriff’s deputy Derek Colling killed a man in 2018. He has since been accused in a lawsuit of deleting relevant footage. But Colling says doing so would have been impossible.

Former Albany County Sheriff’s Corporal Derek Colling argues in a new court filing that he did not tamper with body or dash cam footage from his 2018 shooting of Robbie Ramirez.

Further, Colling argues that doing so would have been impossible.

Ramirez’s mother, Debbie Hinkel, had accused Colling of evidence destruction in a filing last month.

“Plaintiff has employed a discovery tactic of ‘catch me if you can,’ as it relates to a  conspiracy theory – unsupported by evidence – that has been perpetuated by Plaintiff that Colling engaged in serious misconduct in the events leading to the justifiable shooting of Robbie Ramirez,” Colling’s response states. “There is no evidence of misconduct by Colling and nothing in the record to support Plaintiff’s outlandish claims.”

Colling shot and killed Robbie Ramirez on Nov. 4, 2018 following a traffic stop. Ramirez was unarmed, and his family claims he was fleeing for the safety of his home. During a physical struggle, Colling opened fire, shooting Ramirez three times, twice in the back.

A grand jury chose not to indict Colling on manslaughter or any other charges, but the shooting sparked a local movement for police accountability and transparency and for Colling’s termination. During the marches of summer 2020, some demonstrators in Laramie’s streets even chanted “Fuck Derek Colling” while many carried signs and skateboards bearing Ramirez’s name.

More than two years after the shooting, Colling resigned from the sheriff’s office. At that point, former Sheriff Dave O’Malley and former County Attorney Peggy Trent had also resigned.

Debbie Hinkel, Ramirez’s mother, brought a civil suit against Colling, O’Malley and the Albany County government. Last month, she moved for a default judgment, claiming that Colling and others involved in the case tampered with or destroyed video evidence of the shooting.

“Defendants destroyed and altered the only objective evidence of the killing,” Hinkel’s motion alleges. “There is no better evidence of whether Colling’s actions were reasonable than video recorded from his point of view.”

Both Colling and the Albany County Commission have filed responses to Hinkel’s claim of evidence tampering. Both claim that no video evidence was destroyed and further, that no video evidence could have been destroyed given technological limitations and the unbroken chain of custody.

The county commissioners argue that Hinkel’s claims are “allegations of conjecture, wild speculation and at time(s) outrageous.”

“Their motion contains claims that are physically and technologically impossible,” the commissioners’ response states. “The conjecture, speculation, and unsupported claims have caused undue prejudice to the Defendants in this case.”

Body cam vs. dash cam

There are actually two recordings of relevance to the debate.

One is the feed from Colling’s body camera. The feed contains both video and audio, but it cuts out when Colling and Ramirez are wrestling, before Colling shoots. Hinkel claims this was cut intentionally, either by Colling unplugging the cord during the altercation or by later tampering. Colling maintains that the cord came unplugged accidentally during the altercation and that he did not notice the cord was unplugged until a few minutes after the shooting.

The other feed is the dash cam footage from Colling’s patrol car. This footage is just video. Hinkel’s motion claims that this second feed once included audio, but that the audio was scrapped some time after the shooting. Both Colling and the county government maintain that the dash cam feed never contained audio, as sheriff’s deputies frequently rely solely on the body cam for audio recording.

Hinkel alleges evidence destruction

Hinkel’s motion for default judgment begins with a summary of events, starting on that November day when Colling pulled Ramirez over initially for a minor traffic violation.

“Three minutes later, Ramirez was face down on the ground, dying, with two bullet entry wounds through his back,” Hinkel’s motion states. “Exactly what happened during those intervening minutes is at the heart of this case. Colling, the only surviving witness, tells one version of events. The video and audio evidence, even in its adulterated state, suggests another.”

The motion described the struggle and each of the five shots that Colling fired in less than a second and a half.

“Ramirez is out of view when Colling fires the first shot,” Hinkel’s motion states. “Colling’s Glock appears to be less than 2 feet from Ramirez’s face when the first shot was fired. Ramirez reacted to the blast by reflexively covering his face with his right arm.”

The defendants in the suit have claimed that Ramirez raising his arm was actually him throwing a punch.

The first shot fired missed.

“Deputy Colling appeared to have complete control over Ramirez when Ramirez reentered the view of the dash camera,” Hinkel’s motion states. “Ramirez’s hat had been pulled down over his eyes by the time he blindly stumbled back into view. Colling grabbed Ramirez’s left arm and pulled him downward as he fired the second shot. The second shot hit Ramirez in the right side of the chest under the armpit, causing him to fall to the ground. The third shot, fired as Ramirez fell, also missed. Deputy Colling took a step back before firing shots four and five into Ramirez’s back. Shots four and five hit Ramirez in the spine and liver, killing him instantly.”

Colling is claiming self-defense and therefore immunity from punishment for the shooting. So, Hinkel argues, it's important to establish whether Ramirez actually posed a threat to Colling’s physical safety. And a complete recording of the event with audio and visual from both body cam and dash cam would provide that insight, she argues.

“Unfortunately for Plaintiff, Defendants deleted five crucial seconds of video from Colling’s body camera, and deleted audio from his vehicle’s dash camera footage, thereby severely hindering Plaintiff’s ability to show that the shooting was not justified,” Hinkel’s motion alleges. “By this motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court sanction Defendants for intentionally destroying this critical evidence.”

Hinkel alleges Colling or someone else could have tampered with the body cam footage during the three hours following the shooting, during which Colling maintained custody of the body cam, even after leaving the scene.

Hinkel claims there was time for others to tamper with the footage as well, once Colling had passed over the body cam.

“After collecting the body camera from Colling, DCI Agents transferred it to Undersheriff Josh DeBree and Lt. (John) Beeston, who were trusted to download and produce the footage to DCI agents,” Hinkel’s motion states. “Agent Len Propps testified that the video did not automatically upload upon docking the device: ‘they were having a hard time downloading the body camera video.’ Agent Props also testified that it took a while for DeBree and Beeston to download the video.”

Colling, Albany County claim tampering is impossible

In short, both Colling himself and the Albany County Commissioners — in separate responses — state that neither the body cam footage nor the dash cam footage were altered or edited in any way, and that doing so would have been impossible.

“Simply put, Plaintiff is attempting to muddy the waters enough to overcome Colling’s meritorious qualified immunity argument,” Colling’s response alleges.

When it comes to the body cam footage, the county’s response claims that it is impossible for a law enforcement officer to alter the footage. The footage can be viewed by the wearer of the camera if the wearer has paired the camera to a specific smartphone app developed by the same company — but, the responses claim, this app has no functionality for editing footage.

“After the shooting incident, while on the scene, it was technically and physically impossible for Deputy Colling or any other law enforcement officer on scene to modify, delete, or edit the Axon body camera video,” the county’s response states.

Colling’s response details his constant supervision in the aftermath of the shooting, as he first waited in a church nearby and then as he was transported to Stitches Urgent Care, where he surrendered his body camera to a DCI agent.

“Colling was never alone after the shooting,” the former deputy’s response states. “Colling went to the church with Sergeant Shawn Davis and was joined by Deputy Jay Peyton. Colling asked Peyton to accompany him wherever he went so no one could claim Colling altered anything … While Peyton observed Colling, he never saw him, or any other person, remove, detach, replace, or in any way manipulate Colling’s body worn camera.”

The dash camera footage, on the other hand, traveled with Colling’s patrol car. Typically, dash cam footage is automatically uploaded when a vehicle returns to the Albany County Courthouse, via a large antenna on the roof. The county’s response admits this did not happen on this particular instance given the sheer size of the video file.

“Although the shooting incident was relatively short, the duration of the video was approximately three hours in length, which created a significant volume of video and associated data,” the county’s response states. “Because of the large video file and associated data, the Albany County Sheriff’s Office requested assistance in uploading the Watchguard dash camera video from the company that provided IT services to Albany County and Watchguard technicians.”

The end result, the county claims, was that all camera footage and metadata was eventually uploaded properly.

“The dash camera video and the Axon body camera video were uploaded to the respective servers without any modifications, changes or deletions,” the county’s response states. “In addition to the videos being uploaded to the respective servers, copies were made and given to special agents with the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigations.”

The county’s and Colling’s responses maintain that the dash cam footage never contained audio, and cited their own retained expert, who reports that the metadata for the dash cam footage backs up this claim.

Hinkel’s motion had stated that multiple people, including attorneys and Laramie Police Chief Dale Stalder, remember viewing dash cam footage that included audio.

The defendants allege that Stalder’s account is vague, and that the attorneys are likely just confused.