Brady Cop Caught on Bodycam PLANTING Evidence — Case DISSMISSED

“…is seen on body-worn camera planting the drugs in certain places of a vehicle that they’re supposed to be taken out of, and obviously he has been deemed untruthful.”

“Say that again. He what?”

“He was deemed untruthful by another deputy…”

“You probably heard me admit to hiding paraphernalia, leaving loose drugs.”

“Case 26M2819 is dismissed.”

You just heard a prosecutor tell a judge she won’t move forward with a case because her own arresting deputy has issues with truthfulness. The allegation on the table in that moment: drugs planted in a vehicle. To be clear, that specific allegation was never proven. It is referenced here as unresolved, tied to a case that was dismissed before it could ever be tested in court. But it is the same deputy at the center of everything you are about to watch.

Now, rewind with me. May 12th, 2026, El Paso County, Division 21. A drug case builds on the same officer it always builds on: Deputy Daniel LeBaron. Seven years on patrol, hundreds of DUI stops, a resume that looks solid on paper. But defense attorneys across this county are starting to ask the same question case after case: Can you trust what this deputy says happened?

Because LeBaron isn’t just any patrol deputy. He is on the Brady list—the list prosecutors are constitutionally required to disclose because a judge has already found on the record that he was not credible under oath. This is the third video I have done on Deputy LeBaron.

“I know I did receive an email from the prosecution as the court had ordered asking Deputy LeBaron if he retained the other two training materials, the drug interdiction course and the DRE. His response in summary was no, he doesn’t have those. He just has the SFST roll. So I am now in a position where I can’t begin to question the validity of something that I don’t know what was taught and how it was taught. So, I can’t even try to litigate Shreck if I don’t have access to that material, and Deputy LeBaron seems to not retain it. So, I think there have been multiple instances where this could have been requested and simply hasn’t been.”

“I am granting the People’s motion to continue within speedy, and so we are going to vacate next week’s trial date.”

“Good afternoon, Deputy. Please state your name and spell your last name for the record.”

“My name is Daniel LeBaron. Last name is L-E-B-A-R-O-N.”

“Where do you work?”

“I am currently assigned to the patrol division for the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.”

“How long have you been in that position?”

“Almost seven years now.”

“I have gone through some interdiction training. I went through an 80-hour basic narcotics investigation course just this last summer.”

“How many DUI investigations have you conducted?”

“I think my last audit for my DRE application, I was right over 400—I think about 405 DUIs, and then 300 of those were drug-related.”

“So what happened when you made that stop and made contact?”

“As I approached the vehicle, the window was cracked. Super dark tinted windows, so I couldn’t see inside too well. The vehicle window was cracked, and I could immediately smell the odor I’ve associated with burnt narcotics coming from the car. He was appearing lethargic. He was kind of moving around slowly, yet he was still talking to me somewhat energetically. I could see his eyes that were red and watery. And then, again, just that slow movement that I typically associate with impaired driving.”

“Good afternoon.”

“Good afternoon.”

“I had a couple more questions on the field training that you talked about. Specifically, the two trainings where you talked about learning DUI drug detection. During either of those trainings or any other training, were you taught to identify certain substances by smell?”

“No.”

“No. So, they don’t teach you: ‘This is the smell of marijuana’?”

“No, they don’t.”

” ‘This is the smell of alcohol’?”

“No.”

” ‘This is the smell of fentanyl’?”

“No.”

” ‘This is the smell of methamphetamine’?”

“No.”

“What factors or what indicators were you trained on? What are some common indicators of fentanyl use?”

“That lethargic demeanor.”

“Lethargic demeanor. And you said the pupils. Are there any indications in eyes, eye color, regarding fentanyl use?”

“I don’t know specifically either.”

“And were you observing any of these muscle twitches or pupil dilation that you’ve described in Mr. Shoemaker that night?”

“I couldn’t. He had a hood on, hat on, big sweater. There was a whole lot of covered-up skin because it was a cold night.”

“To your knowledge, the passengers in the car were arrested for drug possession.”

“Yes.”

“Are you familiar with hotboxing?”

“Yes.”

“To your knowledge, can fentanyl be hotboxed?”

“I haven’t really done a whole lot of research into that.”

“To your knowledge, can methamphetamine be hotboxed?”

“Same answer. I…”

“Did you ever seek a search warrant for Mr. Shoemaker’s blood?”

“I did not, no.”

“Okay.”

“Evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. And applying that standard, the court finds that probable cause has been established and will bind over count one.”

Before this next exchange, it helps to know what a Brady list actually is. It comes from Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 Supreme Court case requiring prosecutors to turn over any evidence favorable to the defense, including evidence that a testifying officer has a documented history of dishonesty. If a department has ever sustained a finding that an officer departed from the truth, that is exactly the kind of thing a defense attorney is owed before that officer takes the stand against their client.

Internal Affairs, often shortened to IA, is the department’s own body for investigating allegations like that and deciding whether they are sustained. What you are about to hear is defense counsel walking Deputy LeBaron through his own disciplinary file, finding by finding, to establish on the record exactly why his name ended up on that list in the first place.

“Throughout your career, you have been found by the board to have committed misconduct on three occasions.”

“That’s correct.”

“First, on August 25th, 2021, you were investigated for a domestic violence incident in which you failed to properly investigate the case.”

“Correct.”

“You are familiar with the Whitehead case, correct?”

“Yes.”

“Okay. And this case is what brought you to being on the Brady list, correct?”

“Correct.”

“The first trial resulted in a mistrial because you told the jury something about invocation for a right to remain silent, correct?”

“Correct.”

“And then that resulted in a mistrial.”

“Yes.”

“Okay. And then in the second trial, the second trial also resulted in a mistrial, correct?”

“Correct.”

“Judge Ankeny found that you violated the court order.”

“Yes.”

“And as the judge’s determination, your chain of command found that you departed from the truth.”

“Yeah.”

“And you told Officer Bartlett—I have the direct quote, and let me know if you need to refresh your recollection here—you say, quote, ‘I was going to light him up and distract him.’ What did you mean by that?”

“I don’t remember, because I think I was working in that same area. So, I don’t know if I saw that same vehicle prior. I don’t know.”

“Would it refresh your recollection to see that particular clip, or you just don’t know why you said that?”

“No, I just don’t know why I remember saying that. I don’t remember why I was talking about lighting him up and distracting him.”

“Okay. You then asked Officer Bartlett if he smells anything, correct?”

“Yes.”

“And Officer Bartlett stated, ‘No, not really’?”

“Yes.”

“And after that hearing was complete, what was the outcome?”

“I was sustained to have not properly prepared for court.”

“But not a deviation from the truth.”

“No, the departure from the truth was not sustained due to the actual facts that came out after the investigation.”

“And that was based upon the training or not remembering what training you had before?”

“Yes, I think specifically I was told direct and departure from the truth has to be knowingly and intentional, and our memory is not a departure from the truth.”

“How much training do you receive through your law enforcement career? How many classes do you go to?”

“Probably thousands of hours by this point.”

“And when did you attend that class? Like how many years prior to your testimony?”

“It was almost ten years.”

“A decade before.”

“Yes. It was an eight-to-twelve-hour courtroom testimony training that they said I had attended. But again, because I was already POST-certified, there was a lot of times where I checked into the class, but I didn’t have to participate.”

“And you’re still in an El Paso County Sheriff’s Office uniform. So, were you terminated from the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office?”

“Nope, I am still POST-certified because the IA finding did not sustain the departure from the truth.”

“Thank you. And why did you initiate this stop?”

“Initially, it was I had seen his vehicle at Security and Fontaine, and he had been stopped at a light. He was in the right-turn-only lane, and even though it was a red light, he remained at that right turn despite no other traffic being in that area. So he waited until the light turned green. Improper stopping like that is a common sign of impairment that I generally key in on, and that’s why I began following. The vehicle came to a complete stop in the lane and then made that right turn onto Main, and again, no other traffic in the area. No real reason for why he would have stopped in that lane.”

“And just to clear that up a little bit, he came to a stop at the green light?”

“Yes.”

“Okay. And I am going to go back to the weaving and drifting. You said there were no lanes on that road, correct?”

“No.”

“Okay. So, how did you determine that he was still weaving? Can you go into a little more detail on that?”

“Not the weaving, but the drifting, yes. I think I put drifting in the report. Weaving is when they cross over the lane lines. Drifting is when they just drift from side to side in the lane.”

“And you note any cues of possible impairment related to that driving.”

“Correct.”

“And the NHTSA manual lays out 24 cues that could indicate that someone is impaired.”

“Yes, it does.”

“And one sort of subcategory of these cues is problems maintaining proper lane position.”

“Correct.”

“It wasn’t weaving across lane lines?”

“No, it wasn’t.”

“It wasn’t swerving?”

“No, it wasn’t.”

“And you didn’t observe this car stopped too far forward at a light?”

“I don’t remember. You didn’t note in your report that this car was… okay.”

“You didn’t observe it stop too short at a light?”

“No.”

“The car didn’t make any jerky stops?”

“No.”

“The car wasn’t accelerating or decelerating for no apparent reason?”

“No, it wasn’t.”

“It wasn’t varying speeds?”

“No.”

“It wasn’t traveling too slow under the speed limit?”

“No, it was.”

“Okay. You didn’t notice any inappropriate or unusual behavior?”

“Yes, that’s the drifting from side to side.”

“Okay. And from your view, the driver didn’t appear to be impaired. You couldn’t see him.”

“During my personal contact with him? No.”

“During the vehicle-in-motion phase?”

“Oh, no.”

“Okay. And jumping forward a little bit, Deputy, when you pull someone over, you typically explain to them why you pulled them over?”

“I do, yes.”

“Okay. And you did this with Mr. Chavez?”

“I did, yes.”

“You approached his car and explained to him why he was pulled over.”

“I did.”

“And you said he didn’t go right on red when he could have.”

“Correct.”

“And that he stopped at this green light for a few seconds before turning.”

“Correct.”

“You didn’t mention any drifting to him?”

“No.”

“And you called an additional unit to the scene, right?”

“I did, yes.”

“For backup on this DUI investigation.”

“Correct.”

“You explained to them why you stopped Mr. Chavez.”

“I did, yes.”

“And again, you just mentioned these lights, correct?”

“Correct.”

“You don’t mention any drifting.”

“I don’t remember everything I told him.”

“Okay. And you were wearing a body-worn camera.”

“I was, yes.”

“At night.”

“And when you are testifying in front of a judge, the testimony is often about constitutional issues.”

“Correct.”

“About the legality of a stop.”

“Yes.”

“Or a seizure.”

“Correct.”

“So you were testifying in that capacity in El Paso County, Division C, in front of Judge Ankeny.”

“I was, yes.”

“And at that hearing, Judge Ankeny found that you engaged in outrageous governmental conduct.”

“That was her opinion, yes.”

“Okay. That your conduct had violated that client’s right to due process.”

“That was her opinion, yes.”

“And Judge Ankeny found that as a matter of law, your testimony was incredible in that case.”

“Yes, she did.”

“Meaning she found that you departed from the truth under oath.”

“That was her opinion, yes.”

“Okay. That you had violated a court sequestration order.”

“That was her opinion, yes.”

“And an Internal Affairs investigation was triggered because of this.”

“It was, yes.”

“And you were found to have violated the policy within your office titled ‘Departing from Truth’?”

“No.”

“Your commander sustained a finding that you had departed from the truth?”

“No.”

“Can you tell me about what happened then?”

“Okay. He said, ‘Yes, based on the statements made in court, based on the judge’s statements, we will continue with the IA investigation.’ That’s what continued the IA investigation. At the conclusion of the IA investigation, which wasn’t until April 7th, they did not sustain the departure from the truth. They only sustained the unsatisfactory work performance in my preparation for court. So there are several pieces of paper that keep on being used that are a partial investigation or a half-truth, because yes, at one point in time they said, ‘I am sustaining that he departed from the truth based on these statements,’ but there wasn’t a full investigation yet. That was just that continuation for the investigation.”

“Okay. So at one point in time there was a finding that you had departed from the truth.”

“From him, yes.”

“From him. And you had a sustained finding of unsatisfactory work performance at the conclusion of all this?”

“Yes.”

“And you’re aware that you are on the Brady list?”

“I am, yes.”

“I have no further questions.”

“A brief stop at a green light prior to turning right. Again, I think the fact that Mr. Chavez briefly stopped before taking a turn may be a sign of cautious driving. I don’t believe it points to impairment.”

“And there is no credibility issue here today. That finding against him was made in that moment, in that case, and not across multiple cases. He hasn’t done anything today to indicate that his testimony is not credible.”

Quick recap if you’re just catching up: Deputy LeBaron has three sustained misconduct findings on his record—a domestic violence case, Whitehead, that put him on the Brady list in the first place; a judge who found him not credible under oath; and an Internal Affairs process that landed on unsatisfactory work performance instead of the truthfulness violation the judge herself flagged.

Every defense attorney you’ve watched cross-examine him so far is working off that exact same paper trail. Now, watch what happens next. A court has to decide in real time whether he even qualifies to give expert opinion testimony at all. And later, his own body camera gets played back in front of a jury.

“This is a trial-time determination based on the qualification whether Deputy LeBaron will be qualified as an expert. No talk about clues or indicators or anything else on the performance on ARIDE. They could offer opinion evidence on the Standardized Field Sobriety Test, but not on the ARIDE.”

“What are you seeking through the subpoena?”

“So, these are materials I’ve received before. They are an investigation that the Sheriff’s Office did into Deputy LeBaron being found incredible in a jury trial in Division C. There was an investigation done. So, there is an IA file on Deputy LeBaron. There is a transcript that is in that file. It all goes to, of course, his credibility.”

“We are set for readiness today. People?”

“People are ready, Your Honor.”

“Defense?”

“The defense would probably not be ready at this time.”

“Okay.”

“Deputy LeBaron is the arresting officer here, and there are materials pertaining to Deputy LeBaron that I am still waiting to receive that would be necessary for our defense. I have spoken about this with Mr. Weir, but he is okay with waiving speedy to reset.”

“All right. So the court will note there is a waiver of speedy.”

“To make it clear, you did not see her drive.”

“I did not, no.”

“And you wrote in your report that there was driving erratically.”

“Yes.”

“And you also told her that you smell like fentanyl. Is that correct?”

“I did, yes.”

“Now, fentanyl is an odorless drug.”

“It is, yes.”

“It is. Okay. In your IA report, Sergeant Hubble expressed concern about your ability to ever walk into a fourth judicial courtroom and be seen as a credible witness.”

“He did, yes.”

“He did. Okay. And Commander Ray Bernier stated that you lost your stature as a peace officer to provide truthful testimony, not because your actions were willful misconduct, but based on sheer incompetence.”

“I think that was prior to the DAB finding.”

“Okay. But that was something that came up as part of the IA investigation.”

“That was an opinion, yeah.”

“Okay. It is true in this IA finding that the court has found that you’ve sustained an allegation of departing from the truth. Is that correct?”

“No, it’s not correct. No, I wouldn’t have a job anymore.”

“So, just to clarify, your IA file states that you received a letter of reprimand for departing from the truth.”

“Your Honor, I would just renew my objection based on my prior record.”

“Overruled. Go ahead, sir.”

“Yes. So, that small part of it did sustain that I departed from the truth.”

“Okay. No further questions.”

“There is a point that is captured on your body-worn camera where you state to Officer Bartlett, quote, ‘I am going to light him up and distract him,’ right?”

“No.”

“No, you did not say that?”

“No.”

“Okay. So, it is your testimony today to this jury that you never said, ‘I’m going to light him up and distract him’?”

“No.”

“Okay. And this is your body-worn camera. It’s a little blurry, but it says September 9th on the top right-hand corner right there.”

“Yes, I can see that.”

“Okay. I’m going to play this clip.”

“Light up. Distract.”

“You were going to light him up and distract him, right?”

“No, I think I kind of stuttered my speech a little bit. What I was saying with the lighting up was I was going to light up the bags, but I didn’t want to distract him.”

“And Officer, you also testified in a previous hearing in this case, right?”

“I did testify.”

“Okay. And in that testimony, I asked you this exact question, right?”

“Correct.”

“And in that line of questioning, you stated that you did not remember why you made that comment, right?”

“I did, yes.”

“Okay. And today you now have an explanation for why you made that comment.”

“Correct.”

“Correct. Okay. You have intentionally left illegal drugs behind—meth, fentanyl, cocaine—in a car so drug dogs can hit on them at a later date, right?”

“No, that’s incorrect.”

“That’s incorrect. Okay. It is your testimony today that you have never said that you intentionally leave drugs behind?”

“Correct.”

“For a drug dog to sniff on later?”

“Yes.”

“You recognize your voice. I am going to play a snip of it. You would recognize your voice, correct?”

“I would, yes.”

“Okay. And so just going to play this.”

“We can scoop them into… or we could just leave it for the next guys.”

“And when you reviewed that clip that was just played, what did you hear yourself say?”

“I heard me admit to hiding paraphernalia, leaving loose drugs.”

Sit with what just happened. Deputy LeBaron was asked directly under oath in front of a jury: Did you ever say, “I’m going to light him up and distract him”? His answer was no. Not “I don’t recall.” No. Then the clip played and his own voice said it. So he pivoted. He said he meant lighting up bags, not distracting a person.

Then thirty seconds later, he was asked about a second recorded statement: leaving drugs behind for the next guys, meaning a K-9 unit to hit on later. He denied that one, too. Then that clip played, and this time there was no reinterpreting it. He told the jury himself what he heard: “I heard me admit to hiding paraphernalia, leaving loose drugs.”

That is not a memory gap. That is a denial on tape followed by an admission on tape from the same witness in the same cross-examination. This is exactly the pattern Judge Ankeny’s 2023 finding warned about, and it just played out again in front of a brand new jury.

“In his case, he has failed to appear. Your Honor, I think we probably have some records to make, and we might not need to issue a warrant actually on that reason.”

“Okay.”

“People?”

“Your Honor, we will be dismissing this case.”

“Oh, I need more of a record. This is a…”

“Yes.”

“Yeah. This is a DUI, so I need to know more.”

“I think the court had seen a previous motion in a different case where it is alleged the deputy made some comments about planting some paraphernalia in people’s cars. I don’t think it ever got heard because that case was dismissed. Similar to he was doing stuff he was not supposed to. It’s a problem, and that means that people believe he’s just not going to be credible whatsoever. And also there is going to be that issue that we would have to deal with at some point.”

“Yes, Your Honor, that is correct. In reviewing this case, it is our understanding that Deputy LeBaron is the arresting officer, the one who did most of the offense reports and would be the main testifying officer. He is seen on body-worn camera planting the drugs or putting drugs in certain places of a vehicle that they are supposed to be taken out of. And obviously he has been deemed untruthful by another court.”

“Say that again. He what?”

“He was deemed untruthful by another court. So we just do not believe that we could prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. We would not have a prima facie case, and given the deputy’s issues with truthfulness, we would not want to go forward with this case.”

“All right. So the court will note that 26M2819 is dismissed. And we will maybe have a similar record not today, but we know DUI. I think that this might help.”

So, where does this leave things? Across multiple El Paso County courtrooms in cases with different defendants, different charges, and different judges, the same disciplinary file keeps resurfacing: a 2023 finding from Judge Ankeny that Deputy LeBaron was not credible under oath, an Internal Affairs process that stopped short of sustaining that exact finding, and a letter of reprimand that, by LeBaron’s own testimony, does say departing from the truth.

Prosecutors have already dismissed at least one case citing his credibility problems directly, and there is a separate unresolved allegation on the record that he made comments about planting paraphernalia in people’s cars. But the moment that should stay with you is the body cam exchange: a flat denial played back against his own recorded voice twice in the same cross-examination. That is not a disagreement about what a judge believed years ago. That is a jury watching a witness get contradicted by himself in real time on the stand.