NY State Police, Police Pursuit Fatal Collision Report1

The Joshua C. Camp Case: An Analysis

Wayne R. Stinson, a long time resident of Schoharie County and former law enforcement
administrator2, offers this analysis with hope for enhanced law enforcement accountability and
professionalism, improved police-community relations, and more effective government.

What we know
On a warm summer evening in June of 2016 Joshua Camp rode his unregistered motorcycle down to
the convenience store to refuel. He was met by a Sheriff’s Deputy who began pursuit when Mr. Camp
failed to submit to the Deputy’s authority. Moments later Mr. Camp lay fatally injured and trapped
under the Sheriff’s vehicle in the back yard of a residence just a few blocks away.

Initial Impressions
The “Conclusions/Findings” section (p.6) has five short paragraphs, the first four reiterating the points
established earlier in the report. The last paragraph, consisting of two short declarative sentences,
deserves our examination: “The primary cause of this collision was unlawfully fleeing from police and
reckless operation of Vehicle #2 by operator, Joshua C. Camp. Intoxication due to alcohol was
considered a contributing factor.” [Italics added throughout to identify original text of the report]

The statement is illogical, incomplete and biased. It is true that the collision would not have happened
if Mr. Camp had submitted to the Deputy’s authority. It is also true that there would not have been a
collision if the Deputy had abandoned pursuit prior to entering upon the residential lawn area.
The “unlawfully fleeing” from police was not the “primary cause” of the collision. “Unlawfully
fleeing” can be understood as the explanation for why both vehicles were being operated at the
moment, but “fleeing” was not a direct cause of the collision. Mr. Camp may have acted recklessly by
riding his motorcycle into a residential yard on a warm summer evening when people might have been
present. Nevertheless, the Deputy was certainly behaving recklessly as well. The bias revealed in the
“primary cause” statement tends to impeach the entire report.

Who should investigate?

In 2015 NY Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order 1473 directing the New York State
Attorney General to assume responsibility for investigation of any law enforcement action which
results in the death of a citizen. There has been no explanation as to why the NY Attorney General did
not assume responsibility for investigation of this incident4.

1
It is worthy of note that both, then Schoharie County Sheriff Anthony Desmond, and then Undersheriff
Ronald Stevens, are alumni of the New York State Police. Undersheriff Stevens is reported as being
present at the scene5 and would have been the ranking Schoharie County official there. Mr. Stevens
assumed the Sheriff position in 2018, and in a recent conversation6 stated the decision to employ the
State Police to investigate was appropriate for an objective report. Noting the above coincidence argues
that decision may have been inappropriate.

Report Inaccuracies and Omissions

• Collision Reconstruction Unit peer review failure
• Misleading statements concerning the collision Point of Impact
• Biased omission of and unsupported attribution of evidence
• Omitted evidence regarding the dynamics of the collision
• Incomplete description of trace evidence vehicle 1

Additional examples of bias, omitted evidence, inconsistencies and contradictions are listed here.7

Collision Reconstruction Unit peer review failure

The cover page of the report records the case number and specifics of date, time, location, involved
persons, and a table of contents. The reporting officer’s signature appears at the bottom along with
those of two additional investigators who provided peer review. It is noteworthy that neither of the two
investigators providing peer review was at the scene of the incident. This is curious since, according to
the “Introduction”(p.1), two of the State Police Troopers on the scene are identified as investigators and
a third as a member of the Collision Reconstruction Unit. As this analysis continues it will become
apparent that the peer review process failed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of this report.

Point of Impact – omitted evidence and misleading statements

“Impact” (p.5): “Impact occurred when the left front left end [sic] of Vehicle #1 struck the ejected
operator of Vehicle #2.” This statement is seriously deficient. It fails to indicate the actual point of
impact and then states the operator of Vehicle #2 “...became trapped under the left front tire as Vehicle
#1 came to rest.” No doubt vehicle #2 operator was trapped when vehicle #1 came to a stop, but that is
not where his entrapment began. This is an egregious omission of evidence, as well as a seriously
inaccurate and misleading statement.

Biased omission and unsupported attribution of evidence

“Collision Scene Evidence” (p.3): “North of the area of furrows was an area of flattened grass. It
overlapped with the tire mark created by the left side tires of Vehicle #1. It was 3.5 feet long and had a
maximum width of 1.0 foot. The evidence was consistent with contact from debris of Vehicle #2.” This

2
statement is seriously deficient and misleading. Concerning attribution of flattened grass to debris from
vehicle 2, what debris? What part of a motorcycle would leave such evidence? There is no description
of debris. There is no notation of parts dislodged from the motorcycle. The flattened grass area is, using
a phrase the investigator repeatedly used, consistent with being the point where Josh Camp came to rest
after he was ejected from his motorcycle. The correlation of that mark in the grass with the left tire
track of vehicle #1 suggests it is the point of impact, a finding absent from the report and a serious
omission.

Evidence Omission
The “Collision Phases” section “Pre-Impact” paragraph (p.5) does not indicate the distance between the
vehicles immediately preceding the collision. This would be significant for understanding the dynamics
of the collision. The “Mathematical Findings” section (p.6) reports the Sheriff’s vehicle (Vehicle #1) as
traveling at a 16 mph higher rate than Vehicle #2. Depending on the distance between the vehicles, and
considering the reported 48 mph (70.4 fps) velocity of Vehicle #1, the vehicle could have been on the
ejected, and still prone, motorcycle operator in less than two seconds. The Sheriff’s vehicle apparently
struck Mr. Camp at that flattened grass location and dragged him to its final resting point.

Incomplete description of evidence

“Collision Scene Evidence” (p. 4): “Patterned shaped marks from cleaning were visible on the inside
sidewall of the left front tire.” No dimensions are provided for this piece of evidence. The length of the
mark around the circumference of the wheel would indicate if the wheel was rotating. If the entire
inside sidewall was so cleaned it would indicate the wheel had rotated at least one full revolution while
in contact with the operator of vehicle #2.

The Diagram
The diagram does not have a reference point such as an easily observed permanent feature. There is a
utility pole and a fire hydrant at the scene, both of which could have served this purpose.
The dimensions of the area of grass at the southern end of the scene are not indicated.
The rectangular cut on the left side of the diagram is labeled “xxx Griebel Lane” but it is not clear
whether it represents the roadway or the residence. In any case one of these two features is not
indicated. The diagram would be much more informative if both features were present and
unambiguously labeled. Additionally, no measurements are provided to locate the feature.
The point of impact of motorcycle operator and Vehicle #1 is not identified.

Measurements of significant features are not included. This is a serious deficiency since important
measurements are missing from the report narrative. The distances between the 6’ furrow and the
compressed grass area, and between the compressed grass area and the final resting point of Vehicle #1
are examples of such omissions.

3
Conclusions
The New York State Police Collision Reconstruction Report is seriously flawed. It is inaccurate,
incomplete and misleading. These problems can not be solely attributable to incompetence on the part
of the investigator, or to the lack of oversight by superiors. It is very likely this report was intentionally
designed to place blame for the collision on the deceased, Joshua C. Camp, and to absolve the Sheriff’s
Deputy, then Sheriff Anthony Desmond, then Undersheriff Ronald Stevens, and Schoharie County of
anyresponsibility for the incident.

The Collision Reconstruction Report was Exhibit #10 presented to a Schoharie County Grand Jury8 and
likely influenced their verdict. Then Schoharie County District Attorney James Sacket is not without
responsibility. He should have recognized the report’s deficiencies and introduced compensatory
testimony. Of additional concern, is that District Attorney Sacket did not instruct the jury to consider
possible criminal law violations by the Sheriff’s Deputy9.
The incomplete, inaccurate and apparently biased NY State Police Collision Reconstruction Report
does not provide justice for Mr. Camp, nor constructively serve the Schoharie County Sheriff’s
Department, the personnel of that department, or the citizens of Schoharie County.

Recommendations
The New York State Attorney General should open an investigation into this case. The earlier decision
to not assume responsibility for the investigation under authority of the Governor’s Executive Order
#147 was not justifiable then and is not today. Additionally, the scope of the investigation should be
sufficient to encompass the performance of all the involved public officials.

The Schoharie County Board of Supervisors must provide greater oversight of the Sheriff’s
Department. It might be necessary to establish a citizen review board to assist the Board of Supervisors
in this duty. Additionally, it would be constructive for Sheriff Stevens to support and cooperate in this
effort.

The failure of the public officials involved to do their best for truth and justice represents a missed
opportunity for improved government, and a serious disservice to the citizens of Schoharie County.
Democracy requires the rule of law – rules which are accepted and honored by the citizens and equally
applied to all regardless of position, prestige or station. In this case, we have failed that ideal.

Hopefully submitted this 27 August 2018,

Wayne R. Stinson

4
1 - NY State Police Collision Reconstruction Report “Car-Pedestrian Fatal Collision Police Pursuit, Griebel Lane,
Middleburgh, Schoharie County June 17, 2016 7 p.m.” https://www.scribd.com/document/385455260/NYSP-Collision-Rpt-
Camp

2 - Wayne R. Stinson, Retired from Suffolk County Police Department with rank of Deputy Inspector in 1985. Served in
various supervisory positions including Commanding Officer of the Police Academy and Executive Officer of a Precinct.

3 - The Governor’s Executive Order #147 recognizes that such incidents “...can not be prosecuted at the local level without
conflict or bias...” and “...it is necessary to insure that a full, reasoned, and independent investigation… is conducted...”.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/old-files//EO147.pdf

4 - Appeals to the Attorney General to review the Camp case have not been successful. The Attorney General did however,
assume investigatory responsibility for a State Police Trooper/motorcycle collision which occurred in October 2016,
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/attorney-generals-special-investigations-and-prosecutions-unit-releases-report-death

5 - According to the Collision Reconstruction Report “Introduction” (p.1) there were five State Police personnel on the
scene as well as four Schoharie County Sheriff’s Department members.

6 - Personal conversation, 17 August, 2018 Schoharie County Board of Supervisors meeting.

7 - Additional examples of bias, omitted evidence, inconsistencies and contradictions:
a) Biased language - “Collision Scene Description” (p.1), While it is obvious vehicle #2 was uncontrolled, vehicle #1 was
not well controlled either in that it entered a grass lawn area at 48 mph, (“Mathematical Findings” section p.6) and its
operation was compromised by the reduced traction of the grass surface. The contrasting control statements are inaccurate
and prejudicial.

b) Bias, Irrelevant statement - The “Driver Background” section (p.7) states: Vehicle #2 operator...possessed a valid New
York Class D Driver License, which was not sufficient for the motorcycle he was driving. The motorcycle ...was not
registered, nor was it designed for use on paved public roadways. Since the accident did not occur on a public road this
information is not relevant and is prejudicial. Possible traffic violations by operator of vehicle #1 are not indicated.

c) Bias, omitted evidence - “Driver Background” p.7, “According to the toxicology report, the blood alcohol content (BAC)
of Joshua C. Camp was 0.09 percent by weight.” This is relevant in that intoxication could have contributed to the collision
however, there is no BAC report for the operator of Vehicle #1.

d) Inconsistent or Inaccurate statement - The last paragraph of the “Introduction” (p.1) states: “the ground was checked for
roadway defects...which may have contributed to the collision. No such defects...were found.” If a low traction surface
qualifies as a defect then the grass lawn area should be so identified. “Conclusions” section (p.8) states: “Ground
defects...have been considered and ruled out as contributing to the cause of this collision.” This is illogical since the report
states that: “...vehicle #2...operator lost control and was ejected.”(p.5) and “The operator of Vehicle #2 lost control...”(p.6).
It seems reasonable to assume the grass surface contributed to a loss of control for both vehicles.

e) Unrecorded Evidence security - “Collision Scene Evidence” (pp. 4,5), indicates a section of the Sheriff’s vehicle front
bumper and the rear tire of the motorcycle were collected for analysis more than 50 days after the collision. Such a delay
seems unjustifiable and, unless the vehicles were secured as evidence, the value of this forensic evidence is questionable.

f) Contradiction - “Collision Scene Description” (p1) states: “...east side lawn that had a downward slope of 0.4 degrees.”
Is inconsistent with a statement in the “Mathematical Findings” (p.6) which attributes an “...uphill slope...of 0.03…”

5
g) Error - “Collision Scene Evidence” (p.2) contains an apparent incorrect attribution of evidence: “The distance between
them was approximately 5.2 feet and was consistent with the track width of Vehicle #2.” Since motorcycles do not have a
track width (track = distance between left side and right side wheels of an auto) the correct attribution would seem to be
Vehicle #1.

8 – Schoharie County Grand Jury Report, “In the matter of the Investigation of the Death of Joshua Camp” 28 April 2017,
https://www.scribd.com/document/386850805/Grand-Jury-Rpt

9 - Comment concerning District Attorney Sacket’s instructions to the Grand Jury https://scfpg.blogspot.com/p/camp-
homicide.html, 24 Feb. 2018 post: Letter to Schoharie County Board of Supervisors.