June 6, 2022 at 11:41 a.m.
Punzel arrested, faces 6 felony charges
Former Minocqua PD officer faces five perjury counts, one count of misconduct in office
Punzel arrested, faces 6 felony charges
The perjury charges stem from allegedly providing false material statements to the court on March 25, 2021, about an incident that occurred on June 11, 2020.
Punzel had resigned after being placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation into an incident in the summer of 2020 in which the officer brushed aside repeated pleas for help by a man who had been calling 911 to report that a woman acquaintance could be in immediate danger.
In the incident, Punzel arrested the man for drunken driving - that was dismissed but he was convicted of reckless driving-endangering safety - but refused to head to a nearby residence where the man said his acquaintance was being held and was in danger, and Punzel relayed no sense of urgency either to other responding officers or in his communications with police dispatch, records obtained in an open records request show.
It took police more than 90 minutes after the man's first 911 call for police to arrive at the residence. The woman that the 911 caller was worried about subsequently said she was sexually assaulted during the time Punzel was dismissing the seriousness of the threat, and filed a notice of claim against the town of Minocqua, the Minocqua Police Department, Punzel, and the man she alleges to have assaulted her.
The criminal complaint alleges that, in the incident in question, on June 11, 2020, Punzel refused to perform the non-discretionary ministerial duty of a law enforcement officer by refusing to investigate the safety of the alleged victim when informed of concerns as to her safety via 911 calls and personal contact with the man he was detaining.
As a result, he is charged with felony misconduct in office-failure to perform known duty.
The perjury charges stem from the March 25 drunken driving hearing in that case.
On one count, the complaint alleges, Punzel testified that, when he encountered the man he detained for driving under the influence, the man's vehicle was parked in the middle of the road when video evidence and Punzel's own recorded statement to a fellow officer showed that the vehicle was on the side of the road.
In a second count, the complaint alleges that Punzel lied when he testified that the detained man was given the opportunity to perform a standardized field sobriety test upon arrival of a backup officer.
In court Punzel said he was waiting for an additional unit because it was Minocqua Police Department protocol that when someone is tested for their field sobriety, a second officer is there for scene safety.
When a second officer arrived, Punzel testified, he gave the detained man another chance to take the test.
"I asked [the detained man] again if he would submit to standardized field sobriety testing, he stated he would not which I deemed as a refusal, and he was advised he was being placed under arrest for operating under the influence," Punzel testified.
For his part, the detained man asserted that he was never asked to take a field sobriety test after the other officer arrived and, according to the police cam footage, the detained man's version is correct.
The police cam footage shows that, when the other officer arrived, the detained man said "great" and "wonderful." As the other officer began to approach the two, Punzel asked the detained man to step to the front of his truck.
"I need you to place your phone up here for me," Punzel said. "Place your phone up there for me, sir. Place your phone up there for me, sir. Sir, can you please place your phone there. ... ..., can you please place your phone on the truck for me. ..., I'm asking one last time, would you please place your phone on the truck for me. If you do not consent to what I'm doing, I am going to place you under arrest for operating under the influence. Do you understand? Do you understand, ...?"
In court, Oneida circuit court judge Patrick O'Melia had questioned Punzel's narrative.
"And the point was made by [the detained man] that he'll wait until the other officer gets there, remember that?" O'Melia asked. " ... There was discussion that [the detained man] was worried about your bias incident and said - he referenced it a couple times, that you shouldn't be doing this and I'll wait until the other officer arrives, right?"
Punzel said 'yes' and that it would have been okay for another officer to conduct the test.
"And within seconds after [the other officer] getting into the field of view, you place [the detained man] under arrest," O'Melia said.
"Yes. I asked [the detained man] if he would submit to standardized field sobriety," Punzel replied. "Once [the other officer] arrived, he refused, at which time he was placed under arrest."
O'Melia pressed on: "Why not let [the other officer] do the field tests?"
"Because after - I was completing the investigation at that point," Punzel replied. "Could he have done it? Yes."
"So when [the other officer] was there you asked him to do field sobriety tests?" O'Melia asked.
Yes, Punzel said.
"And then you asked him to set down his phone," O'Melia said, and Punzel said that was accurate.
"It seems like you're arresting him because he wouldn't put his phone down or was obstructing," O'Melia said.
Punzel said that wasn't accurate.
The third perjury count alleges that Punzel was not truthful when he testified that he had not begun traveling to the scene of a disturbance at the residence where the woman was until the 911 call was placed by the detained man. However, an April 15 investigation report asserts that the man at the residence in question was Punzel's contractor for a bathroom project, and Punzel had received three calls from the man, prompting him to head toward the residence, where he encountered and detained the 911 caller in the traffic stop.
In a fourth count of perjury, Punzel is charged with lying when he testified that he provided all the information available to him regarding a disturbance at the home to the two officers who arrived to the scene of the traffic stop to assist.
The supplemental report by Oneida County sheriff's department captain Terri Hook asserts that the body camera footage of an assisting Woodruff police officer shows that when Punzel shared information about the issue at the residence with that officer and a Lac du Flambeau officer, Punzel did not share the 911 caller's concern about the safety of the woman.
Punzel also failed to provide other critical information to responding officers, placing them in danger, Hook wrote.
"Officer Punzel did not share with any of the assisting law enforcement officers that the original and only 911 calls came from [the detained man] who reported to Officer Punzel numerous times that [the detained man] was concerned for the safety of [his acquaintance]," she wrote. "[The detained man] repeatedly told Officer Punzel that the welfare of [his acquaintance] should be checked because [the detained man] had concerns about [the man at the residence's] intentions with [his acquaintance]."
Much later, after assisting officers arrived, Punzel gave those officers the acquaintance's purse, which was in the detained man's vehicle, to return to her at the residence.
The fifth count of perjury charges Punzel with making a false material statement of material fact when he testified that he received two communications from his contractor when telephone records confirmed three communications to the defendant's private cellphone.
Richard Moore is the author of the forthcoming "Storyfinding: From the Journey to the Story" and can be reached at richardmoorebooks.com.
Comments:
You must login to comment.