Days before trial, defense confirms FBI had surveillance camera outside Bundy Ranch

The Oregonian

LAS VEGAS — More than three years after the 2014 Bundy standoff with federal officers near Bunkerville and after two trials in the case, testimony elicited in court Friday revealed for the first time that the FBI had one surveillance camera perched on a hill overlooking the Bundy Ranch.

A large TV screen set up in the federal officers’ makeshift compound carried a live feed from the images, National Park Service ranger Mary Hinson testified.

Her testimony came during questioning by defendant Ryan Bundy in a pretrial hearing held in federal court in Nevada.  

Bundy, who is representing himself, father Cliven Bundy, brother Ammon Bundy and co-defendant Ryan Payne, are accused of planning a “massive armed assault” and conspiring to block federal officers from rounding up Bundy cattle unlawfully grazing on federal land in April 2014. The four have pleaded not guilty to federal conspiracy, weapons, threatening and extortion charges.

Opening statements are set for Tuesday.

Under questioning, Hinson said she did not know if the footage, which captured images from outside the Bundy home and a stage set up down the road, was recorded. She said the FBI operated the camera.

On Aug. 22, Ryan Bundy had filed a motion, asking the court to compel the government to provide discovery “regarding photographic and laser equipment used to surveil the Bundy home and American People who peacefully assembled” between March 26, 2014, and April 12, 2014. He asked for the make and model of any such equipment used, as he had found nothing in discovery provided to the defense that referenced the “mysterious device” overlooking the Bundy home.

“What was it picking up? I want to know,” Ryan Bundy told a judge Friday. “The government’s response was mocking me.”

Nevada Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre had responded in writing on Sept. 5, calling the motion “little more than a fantastical fishing expedition for evidence” and arguing that Ryan Bundy had failed to show how such information, even if it did exist, would be relevant to the case. The judge, at the time, denied the motion.

On Friday, based on the first confirmation that an FBI camera was perched on a hill outside the Bundy home, U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro said she would allow the defense to file a new motion.

“We have to find out if a video of that live feed exists,” said Cliven Bundy’s lawyer, Bret O. Whipple.

Whipple had asked for the case to be dismissed or delayed at least 30 days because of the new information. He questioned why the government didn’t share information about the surveillance camera since the standoff and through two previous trials. He argued that defendants shouldn’t be penalized because the acknowledgement of a surveillance camera wasn’t disclosed by prosecutors.

“It’s just kind of outrageous,” Whipple said. “How can you sit on this information for 31/2 years?”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Nadia Ahmed immediately objected. “This is implying government misconduct,” Ahmed said.

Defense lawyers called four witnesses to testify during Friday’s hearing. Most of the testimony revolved around defense concerns that government officials had shredded documents at the federal incident command center used during the standoff. But while questioning Hinson and others about potential shredding of notes, Ryan Bundy queried her about a camera, and she became the first federal official to confirm its presence. She estimated it was up for four days before someone destroyed it.

Ahmed objected to Ryan Bundy describing the camera as a “surveillance” camera. During a cross-examination by the prosecutor, Hinson noted the camera was placed on public land and was also capturing the road where cattle had been collected and federal officers were stationed.

“Was it or not surveilling the Bundy home?” Bundy asked Hinson.

“Yes, we could see it,” Hinson answered.

“Was it taking audio recording?” Bundy asked. Hinson said she wasn’t certain.

The hearing also revealed conflicting statements by federal officers regarding shredding of notes at the incident command site.

Kent Kleman, a U.S. Bureau of Land Management agent and criminal investigator, said in a written statement that there was a “hurried” shredding of papers at the compound late on April 11, 2014, and April 12, 2014, when federal officers received information that the Bundys and supporters were going to storm their trailer offices. He said the papers contained sensitive law enforcement information and personal identifying information, and that’s why they were shredded.

Yet several witnesses called to testify Friday said there was no “hurried” shredding. One, Randy Lavasseur, a chief ranger for the National Park Service at the time, testified that he didn’t see any “hurried” shredding on those days, just before federal officials cleared out of the area, outnumbered by armed protesters.

Lavasseur, though, said he regularly, if not daily, had his handwritten notes on resources and operational plans put into a shred box in the compound’s dispatch center. He said he did so to avoid any officers’ personal information being shared. Some of his notes were captured electronically on a computer, he said.

Payne’s defense lawyer, Ryan Norwood, argued that the defense teams don’t know what information might still be “out there” that could assist in their case.

“Something’s not right,” he said. “We do have a real and serious conflict with the testimony.”

The judge said there was insufficient information to suggest that any paperwork shredded would have helped the defense.

“Just because a piece of paper or video exists doesn’t mean it’s discoverable. It needs to have a particular type of value,” Navarro said.

— Maxine Bernstein

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/11/days_before_trial_defense_conf.html