Home > crime > Former EPD officer arrested

Former EPD officer arrested

Press Release from the District Attorney’s office below.  Original discussion here.

Officer Daniel Kalis Arrested on Outstanding Warrant

On Monday, April 18, 2011, Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office Investigators arrested Daniel Jason Kalis on an outstanding warrant for Fish and Game violations.

Kalis was booked into the Humboldt County jail without incident and is scheduled to be arraigned on May 16, 2011 for four counts of fishing related violations.

On April 15, 2011, the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office also filed the following criminal charges against Officer Kalis:

Possession of a Controlled Substance (Heroin)
Unauthorized Communication with a Prisoner
Possession of more than 1 ounce of Marijuana
False Imprisonment
Possession of Controlled Substances without a Prescription
Unauthorized Disclosure of DMV Records
Unauthorized Access to Computer Network
Petty Theft

Those matters are also scheduled for arraignment in Humboldt County Superior Court on May 16, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.

  1. April 18, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    The T-S tweeted that he’s out already.

  2. Anonymous
    April 18, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    Two sets of laws, apparently.

  3. Plain Jane
    April 18, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    Somewhat anticlimactic and a bit silly considering the serious charges from his first arrest, but it is more evidence that he thought he was above the law and could get him a longer sentence…when and if he is tried and convicted, of course.

  4. Decline To State
    April 18, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Getting bail on the fishing violations, that’s okay but “False Imprisonment?” Isn’t that a felony offense? What the hell is he doing walking the streets?!? This man has betrayed the public trust, lock ’em up!

  5. Charlie Bean
    April 18, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    First arrest Plain Jane? I understood that he was being charged with the violations shown above. At that time, they discoveed he had an arrest warrant for his arrest but not served it. Today, would this be his first arrest?

  6. skippy
    April 18, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    For the sake of brevity and redundant space, others’ comments compiled from the local web
    and previous column are here.

  7. Mark Sailors
    April 18, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    He got out before the woman that got arrested at the Richardson Grove protest today.

  8. tra
    April 18, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    Better late than never.

  9. April 18, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    Yo, Skippy, the previous post is linked in the second sentence of this current post. But thanks for your continued work as Ambassador Linkage.

  10. tra
    April 18, 2011 at 6:08 pm


    Yep, believe it or not he had not yet been arrested on the more serious charges, including the felony charges. They had just “advised him that the charges had been filed” and allowed him to go on his way with a promise to appear in court in about a month.

    At that time, neither the DA investigators, nor the EPD internal investigators, had bothered to check and see if he had any outstanding warrants (for example for “failure to appear in court” which certainly seems relevant to the decision of whether to bring him in and book him and let the court decide on bail). At any rate, no, despite the seriousness of some of the charges against him including multiple felonies) he was never actually taken in and booked (until today).

    It will be interesting to see whether he was even required to raise bail this time around, or whether he was again released on a “promise to appear,” despite his earlier “failure to appear.”

    So, in addition to “better late than never,” I’ll just add “better something than nothing” and we’ll see where it goes from here.

  11. Plain Jane
    April 18, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    Now THAT is shocking, Tra. When I read he had been charged I just assumed he was arrested. OMFG!

  12. Not A Native
    April 18, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    Decline to State, the principle of innocent unless determined guilty(except when the Patriot Act is invoked) applies to him too. Cited people shouldn’t be kept in jail unless they have incentive to flee or commit criminal acts.

  13. Anonymous
    April 18, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    Frankly, fishing on the bridge not knowing that it had been closed due to “low flows” aint a big deal. Happens all the time if you don’t call the fish phone to find out cause its inside the season. Its a stupid ticket/fine. You folks need priorities. I will wait to read about what is the false imprisonment stuff and the drug stuff. If its chicken shit well that’s a shame. It its not chicken shit then its a good thing. Sure hope its not a she said thing with his ex.

  14. Anonymous
    April 18, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    True, fishing in a low flow river that has been closed is no big deal. But he also didn’t have a license and tried to give false identification to the ticketing officer. Then he failed to appear in court, turning not a big deal into kind of a bigger deal.

  15. Charlie Bean
    April 18, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    TRA, That’s what I understood. I have a lot of respect for law enforcement, but geesh, if he was not a law enforcement officer, would this how the person would of been treated? Not!

    Such is life! I hope all works out in the wash.

  16. Charlie Bean
    April 18, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    Anonymous 6:40:

    Makes a great point, this could turn out to be BS. Let’s hope the best for all involved.

  17. Mark Sailors
    April 18, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    There is no such thing as “chicken shit” false imprisonment. Especially when you are a police officer. He had 9 different prescription drug with out prescriptions in his name, if that were anyone but a police officer they would have a charge for each drug.
    This piece of work slept in his car outside his ex’s house and gave severed dogs tails to his kids for fucks sake.
    There must be some bitter misogynistic dudes out there to think his ex put all this on him. Although I know there are plenty of guys that don’t think there is anything wrong with stalking.
    They, like this “officer” are mistaken.
    The DA should charge this clown with stalking.
    Cal. Penal Code § 422
    Cal. Penal Code § 646.9
    Cal. Penal Code § 653m

    That would be 3 more charges that he NEEDS to face, that anyone that wasn’t a police officer would face.

  18. Anonymous
    April 18, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    Gee Mark where are your sources? The blogs? Or?

  19. tra
    April 18, 2011 at 11:02 pm

    N.A.N. is of course correct to remind us that he’s innocent until proven guilty. And I agree that unless a defendant is a flight risk or a potential danger to the community there is no reason to jail them prior to the trial.

    However, in this case the guy had already failed to appear in court for the fishing and false I.D. incident, which would factor into the determination of whether he might be somewhat of a flight risk (allowing someone to walk free with just a “promise to appear in court,” when they already have a warrant out for them for a “failure to appear in court,” on another charge, well, that just makes no sense).

    And the serious nature of the other charges, especially including the charges related to false imprisonment (of his ex-wife), does raise questions about whether he might be a danger to the community, and in particular, to the ex-wife.

    So at the very least, he should have been required to post bail, rather than just being released on his own recognisance. Just to be clear, I don’t know if he was required to post bail or not, or if so how large the bail requirement was.

    Anyway, just arresting him and booking him (even if he was released shortly after booking) is better than never bringing him in and booking him in the first place. If nothing else, it’s a reality check for him, and a reminder that despite the deferential treatment he had received up to that point, he is not, in fact, above the law.

    Again…better late than never.

  20. April 19, 2011 at 1:21 am

    Jackie Wellbaum
    [address redacted]


    Humboldt County Courthouse
    825 Fifth Street Eureka, Ca. 95501

    CC: districtattorney@co.humboldt.ca.us, jrsmith@co.humboldt.ca.us, cclendenen@co.humboldt.ca.us, mlovelace@co.humboldt.ca.us, vbass@co.humboldt.ca.us, rsunderburg@co.humboldt.ca.us

    Dear Humboldt County Grand Jury,

    I am writing to call for the immediate appointment of a Grand Jury to investigate the internal Eureka Police Department (EPD) and District Attorney (DA) actions, both separately and combined, which led to charges against Officer Daniel Kalis’ for alleged criminal activities. The media is reporting that Officer Kalis was allowed to continue to work as a police officer despite alleged criminal behavior committed during the conduct of his personal life and while he served on the force, sometimes while in uniform but not ‘on-duty.’ The handling of Officer Kalis’ alleged criminal behavior while employed and even after his resignation on 01-Apr-2011 seems inconsistent with statute-based standards applied to similarly-situated civilians who are not employed by the EPD.

    As per a recent press release issued by the DA’s office, this matter was reviewed by the Eureka Police Department (EPD) in conjunction with the Humboldt County District Attorney’s office beginning on 07-Mar-2011. Previous to this date, the DA’s office had been conducting an investigation on its own since January of this year. I believe that a Grand Jury must be appointed to investigate why EPD leadership may have allowed a sworn-in, oath-taking member of their department to continue to maintain his position within the department while he was breaking laws including but not limited to failing to appear before the court on the scheduled date to face charges stemming from alleged fish and game violations in 2010.
    I believe the law must be applied equally to all citizens As per recent media reports reporting on this matter it is emerging that there may be ample evidence that the rule of law was not applied equally to the alleged transgressions of Officer Kalis as it was to other members of the community during the same time period. In other words, I believe there may be enough evidence at this point to indicate that based upon internal actions, EPD management and possibly the DA’s office, have treated some people ‘more equal’ than others, if you will. I believe that the capricious application of law by those trusted to uphold the law violates the most basic principles of equality that our jurisprudence system is founded upon and which stem from both the United States Constitution and California’s Constitution.

    It is simply my opinion that Law enforcement personnel including police officers and police department line-of-command should be held to a higher standard than civilians–not in terms of human foibles but in terms of law and order. They’ve gone to college in many cases, and then onto the academy, taken sworn oaths, are sent annually to training courses to keep up skills and acquire additional skills all to uphold complex laws and to work to keep communities safer, more peaceful. Law enforcement officers are considered ‘experts’ by the public and, given their years of specialized training, would be expected to understand what is right and wrong both in spirit and the letter of the law.

    In the normal course of events, it has been my experience that upon contact with a citizen, law enforcement officer’s request an ID, run a computer search for warrants, issue a warning or citation and may then place the citizen under arrest. This is [followed] by a hand-cuffed trip to the local jail for ‘booking.’ To put it more simply, for citizens who are not police officers, i.e. ‘the rest of us,’ the law is expected to be applied strictly ‘by the book.’

    Given what is emerging daily in the media surrounding this as-yet fully explained matter, I’m writing today to request that a fair and impartial Grand Jury be assembled and appointed by the end of this week (22-Apr-2011). I feel strongly that a Grand Jury must immediately examine whether or not behavior outside of the crimes alleged to have been committed by Officer Kalis might have contributed to a once valued police officer being denied the help he needed far earlier in the process and before the unknowing public was exposed to an Officer who, it may turn out, was unfit for duty long before his departure from the department on April Fools day. Should this prove to be the case given what I feel was an uneven application of stated police department codes of conduct, among other things, victims of Officer Kalis’ alleged crimes might have been spared their suffering and loss.

    Finally, the as-yet uncounted number of criminal cases in which Officer Kalis participated in seeing through to resolution might now need to be thoroughly re-examined by defendants’ attorneys. Such individuals still serving time incarcerated or on probation must immediately be alerted that they may indeed be eligible to petition the court to have their cases re-processed or dropped altogether. Leaving anyone in prison or serving sentences who may have been convicted as a result of Officer Kalis’ testimony or collected evidence or written police reports would spread further the alleged harm already suffered by victims of crimes as hinted at in charges recently brought against this former police officer.

    I believe a Grand Jury, once appointed, must begin to understand the EPD personnel policies that were in place during Officer Kalis’ term of employment and which of those polices was applied to this public servant and which were not. I believe there exists internal EPD and DA documentation which will prove that written polices and codes of conduct were not followed consistently or, if they were, there will be careful documentation to demonstrate this.

    It is my fervent hope that once thoroughly investigated, the handling of this matter will be clear for all to see rather than remain opaque as it appears now. It is my hope that the community might be able to once again look with pride upon those professionals who take on the dangerous, unpredictable task of keeping the Peace.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Jackie Wellbaum

  21. Walt
    April 19, 2011 at 6:01 am

    What if Bradley Manning were a cop? Or was the “crime” he’s accused of that much more heinous?

  22. skippy
    April 19, 2011 at 8:15 am

    “EPD Chief Garr Nielsen… expressed disappointment that he wasn’t notified of a criminal investigation targeting one of his officers… ‘As the head of an organization, I should be notified when one of my personnel is under investigation…’ Nielsen said. ‘First of all, I think it’s common courtesy. But it would also ensure that I don’t have someone out there that is potentially a threat to the public that I’m not aware of, or somebody who is potentially compromising confidential information that I’m not aware of.’”

    More by Thadeus Greenson article in today’s Times-Standard.

  23. Plain Jane
    April 19, 2011 at 8:44 am

    That must have been a tough call for the DA, Skippy. Apparently he didn’t have enough confidence that the information wouldn’t leak out and make the investigation more difficult, possibly giving Kalis an opportunity to cover up his crimes and escape prosecution and could also warn possible accomplices. It’s hard to believe that no one at EPD knew about his outstanding arrest warrant, domestic violence and drug dealing.

  24. skippy
    April 19, 2011 at 8:58 am

    Yes, it probably was a tough call, PJ. It was reportedly discussed ‘for a long time’ beforehand.

    The DA’s office didn’t want the investigation, in their words, ‘compromised’. However, they missed the outstanding warrant– a large oversight and error.

  25. April 19, 2011 at 9:08 am

    It’s hard to believe that no one at EPD knew about his outstanding arrest warrant, domestic violence and drug dealing..

    Even if they did, I’m sure they weren’t all that concerned about a warrant over fishing. Domestic violence is still an allegation, one not unheard of in law enforcement circles. Where in the complaint does it say anything about drug dealing? All the charges seem to be for simple possession of relatively small amounts of drugs.

    I’d withhold judgement until more is known. I’d certainly not embellish the accusations so early in this affair.

  26. Plain Jane
    April 19, 2011 at 9:11 am

    Relatively small amounts of a lot of different drugs, Fred. The guy was a walking pharmacy. You might believe it was for his own use, but you believe a lot of ridiculous things.

    April 19, 2011 at 9:24 am

    Do Peace officers take a “piss” test before “clocking in”. Just wonderin’.


  28. April 19, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Jane wrote, “You might believe it was for his own use, but you believe a lot of ridiculous things.“.

    I suppose I do believe a lot of ridiculous things, but you also need to re- read The Oxbox Incident, or watch the movie.

    They’ve compiled a whole list of charges that seem to me the usual case of trying to make the strongest case they can against someone in hopes he’ll be willing to plead guilty to at least some of them. Most don’t seem all that serious to me, at least at first glance of a case being made against someone they really want to nail for something.

    I’m willing to withhold judgement until more facts come to light. Are you?

  29. tra
    April 19, 2011 at 10:00 am

    Some folks may not think that the fishing-related violation was a big deal, and as a legal matter it wouldn’t have been, except for the fact that he allegedly gave false I.D. too the officer and then blew off his court date.

    Those are more serious crimes, and certainly they are relevant to the discussion of whether he should have been allowed to go about his business with only a “promise to appear in court” on the new, more serious charges.

  30. Ed
    April 19, 2011 at 10:07 am

    “Ox Box Incident” great name for a country western band.

  31. skippy
    April 19, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Fred, your view is well taken given the early circumstances and allegations still needing to see the light of day and a court appearance.

    One curious note is this: under these circumstances of at least two felonies, any other individual would have visited the Humboldt County Correctional Facility for the minimum ‘in and out’ quickie processing– with the formal booking of charges, arraignment set, photo and Livescan (electronic fingerprinting) taken, and a mandatory warrant check performed before being immediately released. This is a standard operating procedure.

    This initial quickie booking wasn’t done for some curious reason– and the required warrant check by the jail was consequently (and unusually?) overlooked.

  32. Plain Jane
    April 19, 2011 at 10:16 am

    My first post on this thread conceded “when and if he is convicted,” Fred.

  33. tra
    April 19, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    Well said, Skippy.

  34. Jack Webb
    April 20, 2011 at 8:04 am

    Hislop and Merle Harpham have allot of explaining to do. They have taken a bad situation at EPD and tried to manipulate it for they’re personal agenda of embarrassing the police chief and the department. Those two need to be investigated by the grand jury!

    April 20, 2011 at 8:22 am

    LiveScan: Do elected officials and public empoyees submit to a Live Scan before taking on their duties and obligations (during any hiring process)?

    Volunteers for community functions OFTEN are required to submit to LiveScan!

    Now, when volunteers are a safer bet to be better peaceful people, then it sure implies there is a problem with public employments and, at minimum, certain individual and collective attitudes created by the position of power.

    Again, stinks for the good and decent public employees.


  36. skippy
    April 20, 2011 at 8:23 am

    Why? What happened, Jack?

  37. April 20, 2011 at 8:29 am

    Dear Mr. Webb,

    Won’t you join me in requesting a Humboldt County Grand Jury probe into this matter? I have penned a letter which can be cut, pasted and e-mailed to GrandJury@co.humboldt.ca.us and copied to the DA and our Humboldt County Board of Supervisors (districtattorney@co.humboldt.ca.us, jrsmith@co.humboldt.ca.us, cclendenen@co.humboldt.ca.us, mlovelace@co.humboldt.ca.us, vbass@co.humboldt.ca.us, rsunderburg@co.humboldt.ca.us)

    The Grand Jury website (http://co.humboldt.ca.us/grandjury/default.asp?pageID=GJinfo) indicates that this important body “…serves as an ombudsman for citizens of the county. It may receive and investigate complaints by individual concerning the actions and performances of county or public officials.” and “In general, the Grand Jury seeks to assure honest, efficient government in the best interest of the people.”

    This letter could well be just a jumping-off point to write your own. It can be found here:




    April 20, 2011 at 9:09 am

    You can download a Grand Jury complaint form and attach any letter or other communique/evidence to the complaint for submittal.


  39. skippy
    April 20, 2011 at 10:35 am

    Good point, HOJ.
    Grand Jury Citizen Complaint form in PDF format is here.

    Don’t forget the Public Record Act request, if applicable. Mr. Sims used his slightly borrowed PRA letter from a template model as related in this previous post and column here.

    Mr. Sims cited the ‘First Amendment Project’ website as his template PRA model having good information about requests
    and easily found here.

    There are PRA limitations concernig requests and also regarding law enforcement matters. It’s an interesting read if you like these sort of things.

    Yours truly is also reminded of the caveat one should keep close: it’s better to be of a civic service rather than a civic menace.

    peace… skips

  40. Anonymous
    April 20, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    I think The Ox Boy Band would be a better name, for a boy band, anyway.

  41. anonymous
    April 20, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Hislop is on his own little power trip. And Murl’s shelf life expired way back when. He thinks dying his hair still makes him relevant at the PD. He is going to learn he is not.

  42. High Apologist
    April 22, 2011 at 11:21 am

    High Finance says:
    April 15, 2011 at 8:35 am

    “Every group has an occasional bad apple.”

    * Daniel Kalis, a former EPD officer recently charged with nine criminal counts, including drug possession, petty theft and false imprisonment, some of which were allegedly committed in the line of duty.

    * Joe Marsh, a Humboldt County Sheriff’s deputy charged with felony child endangerment, a special allegation of inflicting great bodily injury while committing a felony and possession of dangerous fireworks without a permit stemming from a July 4 fireworks accident that maimed him and a 10-year-old girl.

    * Gary Fork, a former Humboldt County correctional officer who pleaded guilty in December to having sexual relations with an inmate and aiding her escape.

    * Benjamen Edward Jentry-Rakestraw, a former Humboldt County correctional officer who pleaded guilty in 2009 to smuggling contraband (heroin) into jail.

    * David Gundersen, former Blue Lake police chief, convicted in 2008 of illegally possessing a submachine gun and a pistol with a silencer, as well as 11 counts of misdemeanor battery that were later set aside due to statute of limitations.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s