Here is a hilariously obvious one from my city (Shreveport, LA) that none of y'all have probably ever heard of:
2009 - Shreveport Police Officers report to chief that someone is stealing n******s from the evidence room. Police Chief explains that the matter has been investigated and the claims have no merit.
2010 - Nothing happens
2011 - Nothing happens
2012 (May) - SPD Internal Affairs springs into action and conducts an audit of the evidence room.
2012 (September) - Police Chief declares that "I hold each and every employee of our department to the highest standards and we are not going to tolerate actions that deviate from or operate outside of those policies that dictate how we should conduct our business." The investigation is still underway, but so far it has been discovered that:
1. The security cameras there quit working about 20 years ago and were never fixed
2. The SPD doesn't keep a log of who goes in and out of the evidence room
3. About 14,000 (not a typo- fourteen thousand) pills (mostly hydrocodone) are missing from the police evidence locker.
2013 - Nothing happens because the case is quite obviously d**d on the vine, having been closed and is no longer an active case
2014 - Nothing happens because the case is quite obviously d**d on the vine, having been closed and is no longer an active case
2015 - The Shreveport Police Officers' Association files lawsuit to compel Shreveport Police Department to release results of investigation, but otherwise Nothing happens because the case is quite obviously d**d on the vine, having been closed and is no longer an active case
2016 (February) - A local news station manages to force the DA's office to release part of the internal investigation's report:
1. Sgt. T___ S_______ of the SPD N*******s Unit is found to have gone into the evidence room alone dozens, possibly hundreds, of times over a 10-year period
2. Sgt. S_______ routinely accessed the boxes containing the pills while carrying a black leather gym bag which was never searched
3. Sgt. S_______ is known to have an a*******n
4. Sgt. S_______ offers explanation that yes, he was routinely going into the evidence room and accessing thousands of n*******s seized as evidence and placing the pills into his gym bag, but it was because he was "photographing them for a reverse n*******s sting and/or a n*******s class he was teaching" and he really truly promises that he put them all back when he was done.
5. Sgt. S_______ is informed by IA that neither of those things he just said are real
6. Sgt. S_______ decides that today is a good day to retire
2016 (March) - The District Attorney comments that while he cannot talk about specifics of the case, "It is not d**d on the vine. It has not been closed. It is still an active case."
2016 (May) - Statutes of limitations related to theft of the n*******s expires
2016 (Rest of Year) - Nothing happens because the case is quite obviously d**d on the vine, having been closed
2017 (March) - Lawsuit from 2015 finally goes to trial
1. District Attorney's investigation and an Assistant DA's testimony include:
1. "While at [SPD Evidence Room] I learned from [redacted name] that all evidence related to this case, bottles, evidence bags, and stickers had been destroyed. [name redacted] advised that he had received an order from the SPD administration to destroy the evidence in this case."
2. "With respect to packaging materials, it was quite surprising they were no longer in existence."
3. No one from the SPD was charged for destroying evidence
4. Documents cannot be released as the case "is still open" because there is one more possible charge that hasn't had its statute of limitations expire
5. The reason no one has been charged with the crime is because "the case was not provable beyond a reasonable doubt" and was a "circumstantial case"
6. "[I believe] the case should be held open because additional evidence can come in."
2. It is revealed that there was an actual exchange of communication between the Shreveport Police Officers' Association and the District Attorney's Office that went:
1. SPOA: "Please launch an independent investigation and/or convene a grand jury"
2. DA: "You have no right to tell us what to do! You don't know what is going on in the DA's office!"
3. SPOA: "It was just a request, not an order."
4. DA: "The DA's office does not have to tell SPOA what we are working on in regard to the missing pill investigation!"
3. Shreveport Police lose the case and are ordered to release all results from investigation if no charges are levied by May, when the final, really, actual last possible stature of limitation expires
4. Police chief is asked if there were any orders to destroy evidence. He replies "I have no idea."
2018 - Nothing happens because the case is closed and all statutes of limitations have expired.
2019 - Nothing happens because the case is closed and all statutes of limitations have expired.
2020 - Nothing happens because the case is closed and all statutes of limitations have expired.
2021 (May) - In a neighboring town:
1. A man digging in his backyard finds unlabeled pill bottles containing thousands of pills, calls police
2. Local Sheriff's Department discover over 50 large bottles of n*******s. Report does not give a count, only that it was "over 3.5 pounds"
3. Previous owner of the home is discovered to be Sgt. T___ S_______ (formerly of the SPD N*******s Unit)
4. Local Sheriff's Department opens Special Task Force™ with other area law enforcement agencies to determine:
1. How the pills could have possibly ended up buried in that yard
2. How many overtime hours have been approved for participation with Special Task Force™
5. Local Sheriff's Department's Special Task Force™ tries really, really hard, but is stumped
2021 (June) - Local news station calls Sgt. T___ S_______ (formerly of the SPD N*******s Unit) and asks him if he knows about the massive quantity of n*******s found in his former yard and has he been cooperating with Local Sheriff's Department's Special Task Force™. Sgt. T___ S_______ (formerly of the SPD N*******s Unit) responds that he does not know how a massive quantity of n*******s could have possibly ended up in his former backyard and that he has not been contacted by anyone from Local Sheriff's Department's Special Task Force™.
2009 - Shreveport Police Officers report to chief that someone is stealing n******s from the evidence room. Police Chief explains that the matter has been investigated and the claims have no merit.
2010 - Nothing happens
2011 - Nothing happens
2012 (May) - SPD Internal Affairs springs into action and conducts an audit of the evidence room.
2012 (September) - Police Chief declares that "I hold each and every employee of our department to the highest standards and we are not going to tolerate actions that deviate from or operate outside of those policies that dictate how we should conduct our business." The investigation is still underway, but so far it has been discovered that:
1. The security cameras there quit working about 20 years ago and were never fixed
2. The SPD doesn't keep a log of who goes in and out of the evidence room
3. About 14,000 (not a typo- fourteen thousand) pills (mostly hydrocodone) are missing from the police evidence locker.
2013 - Nothing happens because the case is quite obviously d**d on the vine, having been closed and is no longer an active case
2014 - Nothing happens because the case is quite obviously d**d on the vine, having been closed and is no longer an active case
2015 - The Shreveport Police Officers' Association files lawsuit to compel Shreveport Police Department to release results of investigation, but otherwise Nothing happens because the case is quite obviously d**d on the vine, having been closed and is no longer an active case
2016 (February) - A local news station manages to force the DA's office to release part of the internal investigation's report:
1. Sgt. T___ S_______ of the SPD N*******s Unit is found to have gone into the evidence room alone dozens, possibly hundreds, of times over a 10-year period
2. Sgt. S_______ routinely accessed the boxes containing the pills while carrying a black leather gym bag which was never searched
3. Sgt. S_______ is known to have an a*******n
4. Sgt. S_______ offers explanation that yes, he was routinely going into the evidence room and accessing thousands of n*******s seized as evidence and placing the pills into his gym bag, but it was because he was "photographing them for a reverse n*******s sting and/or a n*******s class he was teaching" and he really truly promises that he put them all back when he was done.
5. Sgt. S_______ is informed by IA that neither of those things he just said are real
6. Sgt. S_______ decides that today is a good day to retire
2016 (March) - The District Attorney comments that while he cannot talk about specifics of the case, "It is not d**d on the vine. It has not been closed. It is still an active case."
2016 (May) - Statutes of limitations related to theft of the n*******s expires
2016 (Rest of Year) - Nothing happens because the case is quite obviously d**d on the vine, having been closed
2017 (March) - Lawsuit from 2015 finally goes to trial
1. District Attorney's investigation and an Assistant DA's testimony include:
1. "While at [SPD Evidence Room] I learned from [redacted name] that all evidence related to this case, bottles, evidence bags, and stickers had been destroyed. [name redacted] advised that he had received an order from the SPD administration to destroy the evidence in this case."
2. "With respect to packaging materials, it was quite surprising they were no longer in existence."
3. No one from the SPD was charged for destroying evidence
4. Documents cannot be released as the case "is still open" because there is one more possible charge that hasn't had its statute of limitations expire
5. The reason no one has been charged with the crime is because "the case was not provable beyond a reasonable doubt" and was a "circumstantial case"
6. "[I believe] the case should be held open because additional evidence can come in."
2. It is revealed that there was an actual exchange of communication between the Shreveport Police Officers' Association and the District Attorney's Office that went:
1. SPOA: "Please launch an independent investigation and/or convene a grand jury"
2. DA: "You have no right to tell us what to do! You don't know what is going on in the DA's office!"
3. SPOA: "It was just a request, not an order."
4. DA: "The DA's office does not have to tell SPOA what we are working on in regard to the missing pill investigation!"
3. Shreveport Police lose the case and are ordered to release all results from investigation if no charges are levied by May, when the final, really, actual last possible stature of limitation expires
4. Police chief is asked if there were any orders to destroy evidence. He replies "I have no idea."
2018 - Nothing happens because the case is closed and all statutes of limitations have expired.
2019 - Nothing happens because the case is closed and all statutes of limitations have expired.
2020 - Nothing happens because the case is closed and all statutes of limitations have expired.
2021 (May) - In a neighboring town:
1. A man digging in his backyard finds unlabeled pill bottles containing thousands of pills, calls police
2. Local Sheriff's Department discover over 50 large bottles of n*******s. Report does not give a count, only that it was "over 3.5 pounds"
3. Previous owner of the home is discovered to be Sgt. T___ S_______ (formerly of the SPD N*******s Unit)
4. Local Sheriff's Department opens Special Task Force™ with other area law enforcement agencies to determine:
1. How the pills could have possibly ended up buried in that yard
2. How many overtime hours have been approved for participation with Special Task Force™
5. Local Sheriff's Department's Special Task Force™ tries really, really hard, but is stumped
2021 (June) - Local news station calls Sgt. T___ S_______ (formerly of the SPD N*******s Unit) and asks him if he knows about the massive quantity of n*******s found in his former yard and has he been cooperating with Local Sheriff's Department's Special Task Force™. Sgt. T___ S_______ (formerly of the SPD N*******s Unit) responds that he does not know how a massive quantity of n*******s could have possibly ended up in his former backyard and that he has not been contacted by anyone from Local Sheriff's Department's Special Task Force™.