A five-year investigation by a special prosecutor has ended with no charges against a former Richmond police officer suspected of lying to obtain search warrants.
Documents required to prove a crime are missing or unavailable because of poor record-keeping by the Richmond Police Department, the prosecutor has concluded.
A five-page report on the investigation of former detective Jason Norton, conducted by the office of Virginia Beach Commonwealth’s Attorney Colin D. Stolle, notes that Richmond police have a detailed, comprehensive procedure in place for signing up confidential informants to ensure integrity and uniformity.
“Unfortunately, these procedures were not followed in most of Norton’s cases. The lack of reliable documentation made it impossible to establish whether these discrepancies were intentional or the result of very sloppy record-keeping by Norton,” the report says.
The report concludes that “although Norton’s behavior may be perceived as suspicious, the lack of reliable witnesses and incomplete or missing documentation, as well as a complete absence of accurate record-keeping not only by Norton but other members of the Richmond Police Department, prohibit us from pursuing any criminal charges in this matter.”
Richmond Police Chief William Smith, who was not the chief when Norton was employed by the department, said Thursday that the agency has worked closely with the special prosecutor to assist and support the investigation.
“In the aftermath of the Norton investigation, the department changed policies and practices to ensure such activity would be uncovered immediately,” Smith said in a statement. “The changes enacted date back more than five years when these cases were discovered. Oversight and review of investigations remains the primary duty of supervisors assigned to this division and is the subject of frequent audit to ensure compliance with policy.”
Problems with Norton’s search warrant affidavits were first uncovered by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Richmond in 2014, prompting an FBI investigation.
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson threw out three federal convictions in cases handled by Norton, but federal authorities chose not to prosecute him.
Former Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney Michael Herring, concerned that his office might have a conflict of interest should one of his prosecutors become a witness in any investigation, requested in June 2015 that a special prosecutor be appointed in the Norton investigation.
A Richmond Circuit Court judge appointed Stolle, leading to the report finished last month.
Stolle’s office looked into possible charges of perjury in writing search warrant affidavits; perjury during a court hearing; forging a public record; and embezzlement.
Among other things, detectives were required to sign a document when money was spent on informants swearing that the information was true. A supervisor was also required to sign the document to make sure the money was spent correctly.
The report said that while police internal affairs investigated some questionable documents and that those involved were cleared of wrongdoing, “some of the officers who were interviewed did admit a culture within the division where detectives would sign as a witness without actually witnessing the payment.”
“Unfortunately, due to this alleged widespread practice of signing without witnessing payments as well as lack of necessary documentation, there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal charge,” the report says.
The report said that in one case where the Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office believed Norton may have lied on the witness stand about a confidential informant, not only were related documents missing, but the informant also had credibility issues that required significant corroboration before any perjury by Norton could be established.
More than a dozen people convicted in federal and city courts in Richmond, of crimes involving drugs, guns or both, have had their convictions tossed out as a result of questionable information about informants used by Norton to obtain search warrants.
Norton has not responded to requests for comment from the Richmond Times-Dispatch in the past.
Asked for a comment Thursday, Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney Colette McEachin, who took office after Norton left the force, said: “I think the report and its conclusion speak for itself.”
“Throughout the course of this investigation, multiple changes to both the prosecution and investigative teams were required,” the report from Stolle’s office says. “Additionally, this complex investigation required the review of voluminous amounts of documentation coupled with trying to connect poor record-keeping and searching for missing documents.”
An investigation by the FBI in 2014 found that Norton used similar or identical descriptions for various confidential informants from 2008 to 2012, which strongly suggests misrepresentations.
There has been no suggestion that Norton set up innocent people. The suspicions are centered on how Norton described one or more informants in affidavits used to obtain the search warrants.
“That is a blistering report,” said Betty Layne DesPortes, a criminal defense attorney in Richmond long familiar with the allegations against Norton. “This report demonstrates exactly what the protestors are saying about police departments — the police will not or cannot police themselves and the system is broken.”
(804) 649-6340
