Bend, OR – Deschutes County Sheriff Kent van der Kamp is facing significant scrutiny after being placed on the county’s Brady List, a designation that could severely impact his ability to testify as a credible witness in court. The move follows allegations that the sheriff provided false testimony in at least two DUII cases, both of which ended in acquittals on the DUII charges.
On April 11, District Attorney Steve Gunnels made the decision to place van der Kamp on the Brady List after an investigation revealed possible inconsistencies in his testimony dating back to 2012. The investigation was reportedly prompted by comments van der Kamp made during his 2023 re-election campaign, which raised concerns about the accuracy of his statements under oath. The district attorney’s office is now reviewing every case in which van der Kamp testified to determine whether false testimony may have affected the outcomes of those cases.
Implications of the Brady List Designation
The Brady List is a tool used by prosecutors to track law enforcement officers whose credibility has been called into question, particularly in cases involving dishonesty under oath. A designation to the Brady List can have profound implications for an officer’s career, as it renders their testimony potentially unreliable in court. Experts in criminal law have indicated that such a designation can essentially make an officer “unusable” as a witness, as any testimony they provide may be subject to doubt.
Professor Tung Yin, a law professor at Lewis & Clark College, explained the significance of the move. “If an officer is found to have been dishonest under oath, it undermines the very foundation of their sworn duty to tell the truth,” Yin said. “The implications go beyond just one case—they can call into question the integrity of an entire department.”
Van der Kamp Responds to Allegations
In response to the decision, Sheriff van der Kamp issued a written statement expressing his disappointment. “I am deeply disappointed by the recent decision by District Attorney Steve Gunnels to place me on the Brady List,” the statement read. “I am working closely with my command team, legal counsel, and county officials to fully understand the implications of this decision and carefully evaluate the best path forward.”
Van der Kamp has denied the allegations of dishonesty and has vowed to cooperate with the ongoing reviews. However, his position as sheriff could be jeopardized if further evidence supports the claims of false testimony.
The Potential Impact on Future Cases
With the district attorney now reviewing all cases in which van der Kamp took the stand, there is a real possibility that some past convictions could be called into question. If any of these convictions are found to have been based on false testimony, they may be overturned or retried.
The Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) is also conducting a review to determine whether the decision to add van der Kamp to the Brady List was justified and whether his law enforcement certification should be revoked. A decision from DPSST is expected by the end of this week.
While it remains unclear whether the sheriff could legally continue to serve if his certification is revoked, experts have stressed the serious ramifications that would follow. If van der Kamp loses his certification, it could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled across Oregon.
A Rare and Significant Move
It is rare for high-ranking law enforcement officials such as a sheriff or police chief to be added to the Brady List. According to legal experts, this designation carries significant weight, particularly given van der Kamp’s position as the head of the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office. As the sheriff, he is responsible for overseeing the integrity and accountability of his officers, making the allegations against him particularly troubling for the community and the department.
Professor Yin remarked, “The sheriff is supposed to be the one ensuring transparency and ethical behavior within the department. To have the person responsible for that oversight deemed untrustworthy is a serious matter, not just for the sheriff’s office, but for the justice system as a whole.”
As the investigation continues and the consequences unfold, the situation is one that is likely to draw close attention from both the public and legal community. The case raises important questions about the accountability of law enforcement officers, the integrity of testimony in criminal cases, and the measures in place to ensure that justice is served fairly for all individuals involved.
This is a developing story, and further updates will be provided as more information becomes available.
