Police corruption in TN and nationally! What contributes to police thinking they are above the law!

Añadido: 2026-05-25

[00:00:00]I'm Roland Mumford with mumford.law. We are in Paris, France for the next couple of weeks. We're here visiting family and we're working on my apartment in Paris with some renovations that I lived in as a young child. My mother was French and so we're doing videos from France.

[00:00:17]Appreciate your patience with me as I'm working with a mobile type of setup and the internet here is different than back home. Today I want to talk about fraud across the United States by law enforcement and there was one particular and compelling story that came out of out of Knox County, Tennessee that served as the basis for this video. But we're also going to talk about fraud in the United States more nationally. In 2000 4 or 2005, I was a county commissioner in Sumner County, Tennessee. I was in law school and we had a sheriff of Sumner County that had been indicted by the FBI for fraud. He had actually been turned in to the FBI by apparently one of his own. And I was excuriated by local politicians who were loyal to that sheriff. I remember the head of that county at that time said to me, "Well, Roland, you probably benefited as much or hurt yourself as much equally going after the sheriff."

[00:01:13]And what I mean by that is is that it was actually the county commissioners at the time that had brought up the matter before the commission, but then at another meeting I had passed a resolution calling for his resignation.

[00:01:24]But yet that was more consternation than the fact than some of the other commissioners that brought the matters up about him. And I believe that my attempting to pass that resolution calling for the sheriff at that time to resign was a basis for political and legal actors in that county to try and frustrate my attempts to be an attorney.

[00:01:47]And then after I did become an attorney, I still do believe to this day that that was a basis for some legal actors to frustrate my ability to have a law practice where I reside. There's a lot of reasons why I'm moving to Savannah, Georgia. So, anyways, let's talk about this Knox County story and let's get into it. 2014, for a brief period, I had represented a number of individuals that had been terminated for free speech. And I actually led an ouster petition to get rid of a sheriff of a particular county in Middle Tennessee. The facts of the allegations were never denied privately or publicly. But, we ended up not being able to go forward on that ouster petition because somebody found a case from the 1950s that said that a sheriff in Tennessee could not be ousted based upon factual allegations that occurred in a previous term. Well, that sheriff had literally just been reelected a few months, had just literally been reelected right after that ouster petition or right in during the same time period. Nowhere in the Tennessee statute regarding ousters of public officials does it say anything about the acts had to be perpetrated during the actual term of the sheriff or any elected official. It was some case that I know the attorney now, I actually just wrote spoke to him recently. And he told me that after all these years, he was the one that had found that case and he told me it was in the back of his head that somewhere he had remember reading a case like that. It was literally from the 50s. But, you would think that that would be in the statute that the acts to support the ouster of a Tennessee elected official had to be performed during the particular term.

[00:03:29]Why is it that we have to go pull case law from the 50s regarding it? Anyways, the petition when we ended up dismissing it. That was the thing we had to do, but we stood up. And I appreciate and I'll always respect those individuals that stood up with me to do that. Anyways, now let's get into the story about fraud in Tennessee and nationally by elected officials. And why do law enforcement officials believe that they can get away with it. Should they be held to a higher standard? And we're going to talk about a number of examples. Today, a major corruption scandal is shaking Tennessee law enforcement after 11 former employees connected to the Knox County Sheriff's Office were indicted on serious felony charges. According to investigators, the individuals are accused of participating in a years-long conspiracy involving theft of taxpayer money, misuse of county property, and abuse of official resources. The indictments include charges charges of conspiracy to commit theft, theft of property over $250,000, and theft of services over $60,000.

[00:04:40]Authorities alleged department credit cards were used to purchase personal items, including electronics, automotive equipment, construction supplies, hunting gear, and home renovation materials. Investigators also claim seized cash from narcotics investigations was improperly spent on personal expenses, and that county-owned vehicles, equipment, and labor were used for private projects ranging from home renovations to outdoor construction work. That is very interesting because I had a jury trial in East Tennessee back in February where I represented somebody who had been terminated for standing up for himself and representing illegal acts that had occurred on the part of employees of the state of Tennessee.

[00:05:25]Here's a new story about the matter that we'll discuss what occurred and give more details. And on the other side, we're going to talk about the legal issues about fraud on the part of law enforcement and do a legal breakdown.

[00:05:36]But here's that new story. See you on the other side.

[00:05:38]>> begins now with [music] breaking news.

[00:05:42]Accusations of corruption inside the Knox County Sheriff's Office. 11 people, including former Sheriff J.J. Jones, Assistant Chief Deputy David Amburn, now indicted in a theft conspiracy case.

[00:05:54]This follows a years-long investigation by the TBI. It started in 2019 involving theft among the Knox County Sheriff's Office. Now, these are the mug shots of the men involved. Jones and Amburn have not officially been booked yet. Glad you're here for WVLT News 6:00, folks.

[00:06:10]I'm Ted Hall.

[00:06:10]>> And I'm Casey Wheeless. Prosecutors say for years taxpayer money, seized drug cash, and county equipment were diverted for personal gain. We have team coverage for you on this tonight. Sheron Austin looking into the background of those indicted, and Harry Sullivan looking into the specific allegations. We're going to start with our Lindsey Stanger downtown Knoxville tonight. Lindsey, what do we know about the charges? What have you seen today?

[00:06:34]Yeah, Ted, Casey, like you mentioned, 11 of those former and current employees from the Sheriff's Office all being indicted today. And here earlier this afternoon, we actually watched eight of those former and current employees come through here and get turn themselves in at the booking area. Those mug shots, like you mentioned, posted as well. Now, it is important to note that the TBI and the FBI say that this indictment stems from an investigation into the KCSO's Narcotics Unit from the from the years of 2010 to 2018.

[00:07:08]Again, they're looking at some of these things and claim that this investigation uncovered thousands nearly $300,000 worth of un- or misused credit card information from for personal use. They also outline a specific incident where they say nearly $30,000 in cash that was discovered on drug investigations was used for personal use as well. Again, we are still learning into exactly what some of those those misuse of funds are coming into, but of course we have been sticking on top of this throughout the day.

[00:07:49]Thanks. Lindsey, thanks. Our team coverage continues with our Harry Sullivan tonight. Harry, you're getting more specifics on what they're accused of doing. Yeah, Tenn Casey, the allegations all center around the KCSO narcotics unit spanning 8 years, 2010 to 2018. Many of the suspects involved are accused of making unauthorized purchases using items from NCS KCSO narcotics credit card as well as seized cash in the seized cash fund. They're accused of buying things like construction materials, tools, security cameras, coolers, Apple products, and more.

[00:08:20]According to one court document, on one occasion, civilian Mike Kidd received a camera system that was purchased with the KCSO narcotics credit card and installed by Franklin Lowry while on duty with KCSO. Others are accused of working on Mike Kidd's pool including installing a new pool liner while on duty. Another case, according to documents, John Hopkins, Tim Isaacs, Franklin Lowry, and an unindicted co-conspirator and multiple of them built a gazebo, completed various home repairs including installing flooring, pool repairs, all at the home of John Hopkins for his personal benefit using KCSO resources. Other allegations include restoring classic cars on KCSO property with sheriff's office equipment and tools. Another mentions a Halloween display. These are all just a couple of the allegations in this very lengthy indictment. A lot of these people involved in multiple of these allegations. We have the full report including several more allegations.

[00:09:16]There's quite a few inside your WVLT News app. All right, Harry Sullivan, thanks. Our Jared Austin now is joining us. You're digging into these the history of these people in law enforcement in East Tennessee. Yeah, 10 of the 11 charged worked or have worked with the Knox County Sheriff's Office at some point. This includes a retired assistant chief deputy, David Henderson, who has He's pled guilty in the case at the federal level. These are all state charges we're getting today in this indictment. The FBI began investigating Henderson in 2019. He already pled guilty in the federal case accused of spending more than $100,000 of county money on Apple products and ordering people below him to do construction projects. Four years ago, he agreed to pay more than 20 grand in restitution after pleading guilty to these federal charges. Other names on the indictment right here, former Knox County Sheriff JJ Jones. He was Sheriff here Knox County from 2007 through 2018. Recently ran in Sheriff's races this year and in 2022. Finished last in the Republican primary for this election for Sheriff.

[00:10:14]Now, another Sheriff's candidate included in this indictment. That man right there, Chief of Detectives David Amburn for the Sheriff's office. He also lost in the primary election for Sheriff finishing second to Brent Gibson. He's been with KCSO since 1992 promoted to Chief of Detectives in 2021 by current Sheriff Tom Spangler. And Aaron Yarnell is a supervisor of technology for the Sheriff's office. Started full-time with KCSO in corrections back in 1998.

[00:10:40]Promoted to sergeant and detective in the early 2000s. And his current role involves him supervising 35 employees at the Sheriff's office and dealing with the crimes such as sex offender investigations and internet crimes against children. Again, 11 people have now been indicted in this. As of now, Henderson, Jones, and Amburn the only ones who haven't been booked yet in the Knox County jail, guys. And Jared, we did learn that none of them are currently in jail.

[00:11:05]>> Yeah, what we've learned is that all of them just bonded out after getting those booking photos done. All right, Jared, thanks. And trust us to continue to follow this case as it moves through the courts. Download the WVLT News app to read the complete TBI report and the indictment. We'll send you updates directly to your phone.

[00:11:22]Federal investigators reportedly began examining the allegations years ago before evidence was eventually presented to prosecutors. A special prosecutor was later appointed to oversee the case and several Kerr employees were reportedly placed on administrative leave. But experts say this case is not just about alleged theft. They say it raises deeper questions about power, psychology, accountability, and the culture inside certain law enforcement institutions across America. Criminologists and psychologists who study police corruption say one of the most dangerous psychological shifts that can happen in law enforcement is what experts sometimes describe as moral exceptionalism, the belief that the rules applying to ordinary citizens somehow do not fully apply to the people enforcing them. Researchers say this mindset can slowly develop over the years inside high-authority professions where officers are constantly placed in positions of control, granted legal discretion, and regularly praised as protectors of society. Over time, some individuals may begin viewing themselves not simply as public servants but as people operating above ordinary accountability. Experts say that is where the irony becomes especially disturbing. Police officers, deputies, detectives, and sheriffs are sworn to enforce the law and are entrusted with extraordinary authority by the public.

[00:12:56]They carry weapons, make arrests, conduct searches, seize property, and in some situations make life-and-death decisions. And because of that power, legal scholars argue officers are supposed to be held to a higher ethical standard than ordinary citizens. Yet in many corruption scandals, prosecutors say some officers appear to believe the exact opposite, that the badge itself provides protection from consequences.

[00:13:25]Former federal anti-corruption investigators say repeated exposures to unchecked authority can create a dangerous sense of invulnerability.

[00:13:35]Officers who are rarely challenged, rarely audited, or constantly protected by internal culture may gradually begin believing they will never be reported, investigated, or punished. Psychologists also point to what's known as group normalization. In many public corruption cases, investigators discover multiple officers participating together rather than one isolated individual acting alone. Researchers say when unethical behavior becomes socially accepted within a unit, employees may stop feeling misconduct as criminal and instead see it as a normal workplace behavior. Small violations become larger ones, and eventually corruption becomes institutionalized. Experts frequently point to the blue wall of silence, a culture where officers may hesitate to report wrongdoing by co-workers out of loyalty, sheer retaliation, or concern about damaging the department's reputation. Critics argue that this culture can unintentionally protect corruption by discouraging whistleblowers and isolating honest officers who attempt to speak up. I oftentimes have failure to intervene claims in my lawsuits where a superior on scene didn't stop to prevent the misconduct that particularly occurred with one of my clients, for example, in use-of-force cases. Another measure question experts often examine is whether corruption tends to occur mostly among leadership or throughout all ranks of law enforcement. Researchers say the answer is both, but in different ways.

[00:15:14]Studies on police misconduct show lower-ranking officers are statistically more likely to be involved in street level corruption such as evidence tampering, excessive force cover-ups, overtime fraud, false reporting, theft during arrests, or improper use of confidential databases. These cases often involve individual officers or small groups operating within specialized units. But experts say large-scale financial corruption schemes involving misuse misuse of public funds, procurement fraud, conspiracy networks, or long-running institutional misconduct frequently involve supervisors, command staff, or elected sheriffs because higher-ranking officials typically control budgets, oversight systems, purchasing authority, promotions, and internal discipline. Former federal prosecutors often say corruption becomes far more dangerous when it reaches leadership levels because supervisors set the ethical tone for an entire department. If leadership ignores misconduct, minimizes violations, or participates directly, experts say lower-ranking employees may interpret unethical behavior as tolerated or even expected. Researchers sometimes refer to this as top-down normalization, where corruption spreads throughout organizational culture rather than remaining isolated to one individual. In several major public corruption investigations nationwide, prosecutors found that young officers entering those environments adapted to existing misconduct because they believed it was simply how things were done inside the department. At the same time, experts caution against assuming corruption exists everywhere within an agency simply because leadership becomes involved in wrongdoing. Criminologists emphasize that many officers inside departments under investigation are often unaware of corruption schemes or may feel powerless to challenge them.

[00:17:22]Experts also say power dynamics matter enormously. Lower-ranking officers who attempt to report misconduct by senior supervisors may fear retaliation, career damage, isolation, denial of promotions, reassignment, or even termination. They fear that, fear researchers say, can allow corruption to survive for years before outside investigators finally intervene. And perhaps the most troubling question raised by cases like this is whether accountability systems in America are truly strong enough when the people accused of wrongdoing are the very people responsible for enforcing the law. Critics argue that ordinary citizens are often prosecuted aggressively for theft, fraud, or abuse of public resources, while officers accused of similar crimes may benefit from institutional protections, delayed investigations, union defenses, political relationships, or public hesitation to challenge law enforcement authority. Some legal analysts say that perception alone damages public trust even before a verdict is reached. And that debate has fueled a growing national conversation about whether law enforcement officers should face harsher penalties when convicted of corruption-related crimes. Supporters of stricter penalties argue that officers voluntarily accept positions of extraordinary trust and authority and therefore betray the public in a more serious way when they commit crimes under the color of law. Some prosecutors and ethics experts compare police corruption to misconduct by judges, prosecutors, or elected officials, arguing that abuse of public trust deserves enhanced punishment because it undermines confidence in the entire justice system. Others argue that the law should apply equally to everyone regardless of profession and warn against creating separate standards of punishment based solely on occupation.

[00:19:28]Still, many legal scholars agree that corruption involving law enforcement tends to have broader societal consequences because it weakens faith in institutions designed to protect the public. Another major issue in cases like this involves the complex relationship between state and federal investigations. Many viewers wonder why both state and federal agencies often become involved in public corruption cases and how those investigations work together behind the scenes. Legal experts explain that state and federal authorities frequently operate in parallel because certain conduct can violate both state law and federal law at the same time. Theft of taxpayer funds, fraud, conspiracy, misuse of government resources, bribery, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, or misuse of federal grant money can potentially trigger federal jurisdiction in addition to state criminal charges. In many corruption cases, local prosecutors may face conflicts of interest because they work closely with the same law enforcement agencies under investigation. And that is one reason state-level agencies such as the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation are often brought in to create distance and independence from local politics. I remember having meetings with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and that particular sheriff that we'd gone after back in 2014. Federal agencies like the FBI also become involved because they specialize in long-term public corruption investigations involving financial records, electronic communications, interstate transactions, organized conspiracies, and federal anti-corruption statutes. But experts say these investigations are often built through joint task forces where federal agents and state investigators work side-by-side sharing evidence, conducting interviews, reviewing financial records, executing search warrants, and coordinating strategy with prosecutors. And nationally, similar corruption cases have surfaced repeatedly over the last decade. In South Carolina, former Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright pleaded guilty after prosecutors accused him of stealing from a sheriff's office fund, misusing county credit cards, and improperly taking narcotics collected during drug take-back programs. In Virginia, former Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison after being convicted in a bribery scheme involving honorary law enforcement positions exchanged for cash payments. In Mississippi, former Hinds County Sheriff Marshand Crisler was convicted on federal bribery charges after prosecutors said he accepted cash payments in exchange for favors and confidential information. Experts say these cases reveal recurring themes: weak oversight, concentration of power, lack of transparency, normalized misconduct, and cultures where certain individuals began believing they are untouchable. As for the Knox County, Tennessee defendants, all 11 remain presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court. But if prosecutors ultimately prove the allegations, legal experts say the case could become one of the largest public corruption scandals in Knox County law enforcement history. And for many Americans watching cases like this unfold, the question goes far beyond one sheriff's office. Larger question is this, in a system built on the idea that nobody is above the law, what happens when the people trusted to enforce the law begin believing they are exempt from it themselves. One of the other things that I've learned when I have gone after corrupt officials based upon alleged the allegations, was that in small rural communities and counties, how their close relationships with the community and their supporters, some of these politicians and sheriffs and so forth, they could rob a bank in the middle of the day on camera and some of their supporters absolutely would not care and would continue to vote for them. And in fact, I've seen that where people continue to get elected even after committing such fraud. And why is that?

[00:23:56]Well, because there's an interplay of that relationship between maybe that sheriff or that county mayor or whoever the politician is in that county and then who it is that is on the other end of that relationship. Now, is that based on loyalty? Did they go to high school together? Or is are they benefiting from that relationship? It could be somebody maybe has a farm and maybe certain things are going on on that farm that benefits that farmer and the sheriff is just turning a blind eye rather than to prosecute justice because maybe it could be who is on that farm. So, anyways, thank you for your time. I hope you enjoyed this video and please click like, share, and subscribe. For more legal news, investigative coverage, and analysis of major public corruption cases, make sure you subscribe and stay tuned for continuing updates. Please click like, share, and subscribe and let me know your thoughts in the comments and help me drive that algorithm. From Paris, have a good day.