Court Decision · 2026-03-23
Rogers defendants dismissed in Warnick medical-care case
The court considered the pleadings and referenced body-camera evidence and found no medical-care constitutional violation by Rogers officers Riley McCarver and Kaden Dickson in the February 4, 2025 contact. It granted qualified immunity and dismissed the Rogers defendants, including the city claim and outrage claim. This includes a favorable merits determination on the medical-care issue. The county and sheriff's pleading motion was denied; that did not establish their liability. Available-Record migration: this narrow merits determination supports C5 only; it does not rate the separate county jail, other custody/clinical duties or all Rogers encounters. Scope: Rogers defendants and defined claims only. TCF did not independently view the complete body-camera recording. Later appeal/status not verified.
Saved research · page 12Agency Statement · Undated; reviewed 2026-10-10
Published complaint intake and response process
Rogers publishes several complaint routes, accepts anonymous complaints, describes supervisor or internal-affairs investigation, and states a general 45-day written notification target. No complete complaint register, closed investigative files or measured compliance with that target was reviewed. The bounded public wording was reread October 13, 2026; no implementation was tested. Scope: Published process; actual implementation and outcomes unverified.
Saved research · page 12Licensing Decision · 2025-07-08/09
CLEST voted to proceed to a hearing; final outcome unverified
The July 8-9 minutes record Rogers requesting decertification of former Officer Guadalupe Rodriguez. The commission voted to proceed to a decertification hearing. This procedural referral is not a final decertification or sustained misconduct finding. Targeted follow-up searches did not establish the later disposition. Scope: Former officer named in minutes; no adverse finding attributed to current personnel or to the department.
Saved research · page 12Agency Statement · 2026-08-18
Dated public update on an active shooting investigation
Rogers issued an update about an August 17 East Southern Trace Drive shooting and described consultation with the Benton County prosecutor. This is evidence that an agency public update was issued. The underlying investigation, response performance and final outcome were not independently reviewed. Scope: RPD case 2026-4377; this release is not an officer-involved shooting adjudication.
Saved research · page 12Court Decision · 2026-06-04
Later county case stay located; current status unresolved
A later reproduced court order granted intervention and stayed the remaining county case pending a final state probate order. It does not reinstate the Rogers defendants or establish county liability. No later docket resolution or appeal was verified in this review. Scope: Remaining county litigation; described as a dated order, not necessarily the current case status.
Saved research · page 12Licensing Decision · 2025-07-08/09
Training extension approved
CLEST minutes approve a Rule 1002 extension requested by Rogers for Jonathan Castaneda. The approval does not establish eventual training completion and is not itself a failure finding. Scope: One named training-extension request; not a workforce completion audit.
Saved research · page 12Agency Statement · 2026-06-11
CLEST tabled a Rogers agenda item for more information
DPS's distributed June hearing summary lists the James Templin / Rogers Police Department agenda request among those tabled to obtain further information. The summary does not report a final adverse finding. Later status was not verified. Scope: Procedural agenda status in a state agency release.
Saved research · page 13Accreditation · 2024-11-20
Historical accreditation claim outside the review window
The city police page reports its fifth CALEA award on November 20, 2024. This predates the review window; the underlying assessment and current compliance were not independently examined. Scope: Agency-reported historical context; no conduct points awarded.
Saved research · page 13Scope and evidence gaps
Archive migration with historical conduct cutoff October 9, 2026 and original October 10 source/comment retrieval dates. Only named complaint/records/FAQ publication snapshots were reread October 13; the budget reattempt remained blocked. Three fixed checks are assessable. C5 is one narrow favorable district-court medical-care merits determination for two named officers; A1 and P2 concern published information. This is not a representative sample of departmental conduct. The Warnick medical-care holding is not expanded to all custody, force, policy or clinical duties; the separate Benton County jail is excluded. Complete body-camera footage was not independently viewed and later appeal/status remains unverified. No complete operational sampling frame, agency complaint/force outcome register, completed agency investigative/discipline sample, actual records-response log, roster-linked training completion or supervisory review sample was obtained. Final CLEST outcomes remain unverified; procedural referrals, extensions and tabled items are not final misconduct or failure findings. The 2026 police budget and current filled/authorized/reserve staffing remain unverified. A blocked PDF is Unknown, not evidence of concealment or a missing budget. FBI crime values retain their original snapshots: 2025 full year; 2026 January-April only, with May-September null, not zero. No annualization or performance inference. Public sentiment remains NR. All 51 raw archived comments retain their original exclusion/hold codes; no eligible dated department-specific sample or new collection is claimed. No agency records request or response invitation was sent. Public statements and published service promises are not responses to TCF or observed response performance. The original search rule is retained verbatim in original_selection_rule. No complete operational sampling frame, representative incident set or broad audit was obtained. C5 covers one court-resolved medical-care claim for two named officers, not the county jail or department-wide custody performance. New publication snapshots do not extend the historical conduct cutoff.
Selected source links
Links reproduced from the saved research. Findings retain the report’s original review date.
The full source register is in the research PDF.
Agency response
Not requested by TCF for this draft.
