Officer Justen Lorenzen of the Loveland police was the officer who came to Centerra after Daniela called 911 to report an accident.  He was one of the people testifying at the civil trial of Sharon Scheller.

Officer Lorenzen gave his testimony in a deposition recorded digitally and played back in the courtroom for the Jury to see and hear.  He was not physically present at the trial and no reason for his absence was given.  His absence made it impossible for the attorneys to question him on the witness stand after his deposition was played.  That was unfortunate because his testimony showed 25 instances of unprofessional performance of his job, including prejudicial assumptions he made about both Daniela and Karla King.

After the trial we wrote a complaint letter to the Chief of the Loveland Police, and the Loveland City Council members that noted these 25 instances of poor performance.  The letter to those people can be read here.

Let us review some of those instances to give a picture of the poor performance by the Officer. 

He failed to write an Accident Report because he assumed that there was no significant damage involved.  Daniela told him that a large noise came from under the car.  Damages of $1,000 would normally trigger a report.  Actual damages were $2,500, and Daniela suffered PTSD as a result of the accident.  The Officer clearly failed to assess the damages in this incident.

The water course into which Daniela nearly fell, was wide and deep.  The Officer could not recall seeing it.  This suggests that his ability to observe an accident site are very poor.

Daniela told Sharon Schellor that she had called 911, and that Sharon should stay and wait for the Police to arrive.  Scheller left to eat at Biaggi’s adjacent to the parking lot.  The Officer had every right to go find her and see if she was impaired in any way.  He made no attempt to find her, and could not see if she was on drugs or otherwise impaired.  This has the appearance of simple laziness or prejudice.  He testified that talking to Scheller on the phone 5 hours after the accident was sufficient for his investigation.  That statement is preposterous.

The Officer has been trained in accident reconstruction analysis, yet he did none for this accident.  The only analysis was done by Karl King.

The Officer testified that he saw no damage on Daniela’s van, yet insurance adjusters who looked at the car had no trouble seeing the damage.

Karla King was in the van when it was run off the road.  She is a karate student who regularly spars with her Black Belt instructors.  At the time of the accident, she was at the Brown Belt level and has obtained her Black Belt.  She is trained to be observant in battle.  Her verbal fluency is excellent.  None of that mattered because the Officer never interviewed her, and made prejudicial comments about her to the Jury in his testimony.  Karla saw Scheller change lanes during the accident and so testified in Court.  The Officer’s total failure to interview a witness to an accident is dereliction of duty.  The Officer said he couldn’t write a ticket based on one person’s account, but he would have had two accounts if he had taken the time to interview Karla.  His assumption that Karla has no information is indefensible.  When he was asked in his deposition why he didn’t speak to Karla, his answer was, “For no particular reason.” Is that incompetence or prejudice?

As noted earlier, Scheller told the Officer that she is a doctor.  The Officer assumed that she was a medical doctor.  Had he investigated, he would have found that she has a doctoral degree in medical facility management.  It looks as if she pulled the wool over his eyes and he totally fell for it.

The Officer testified that he presumed that Daniela King was not from the U.S. and claims that it didn’t bias his investigation.  He never asked Daniela where she was born, or if she is a U.S. citizen, which she is.  If he is not biased, why did he even bring this up in his testimony that the Jury heard?

In her interview by CFBI, Scheller stated that the Officer thought Daniela was trying to scam her to pay for damage under the car.  If Scheller’s statement was true, it indicates serious prejudice on the part of the Officer before he filed his police report.

His decisions in this matter favor Scheller and appear biased against Daniela and Karla King.

After the trial, we sent a detailed letter of complaint to the Loveland Chief of Police and the Loveland City Council, which can be read here.  After investigation, we got a form letter with no pertinent information about their findings or any corrective actions to be taken other than “we always seek the opportunity to improve upon our processes and policies.”

Let this example be a warning that while we assume that police will be impartial and help citizens in an accident, this example shows that it doesn’t always happen.