< Back to All News

Lamphier ‘s Attorney Says Case is Being Tried in Court of Public Opinion

The attorney representing former Nevada County Supervisor Terry Lamphier on 3 counts of possession of Child Pornography allegedly found on his county computer is concerned that Lamphier’s case is being tried in the court of public opinion before it is tried in front of a jury and court. Stephen Munkelt in a press release issued this morning says In order to promote more balanced discussion of the charges against Mr. Lamphier he is providing three documents with the release. One is the Sheriff’s report of the interview conducted with Steve Enos on October 29th of 2014. Second is a copy of the article Mr. Enos dropped off in the anonymous envelope to the county Supervisors Office, which is about the resignation of the mayor of Dudley, Great Britain after pornography was found on his council computer.  And the third item is a copy of the letter from the Fair Political Practices Commission rejecting Mr. Enos’ complaint against Terry Lamphier.

Munkelt explains why he decided to go public.

click here to listen to Stephen Munkelt


Munkelt says anyone who wants to take the time to compare the text of Enos’ interview with the Sheriff’s Department and Enos’ Opinion column published in the Union Newspaper March 15th will find there were “significant omissions and misrepresentations in his column.”

click here to listen to Stephen Munkelt 

Nevada County District Attorney Cliff Newell says he really doesn’t have anything to say about Munkelt’s release of the material.

click here to listen to Cliff Newell

The next court day for Terry Lamphier is April 20th at 9 o’clock for a pre-trial conference.


The Press Release and documents are available below.




By: Attorney Stephen Munkelt, Nevada City
I strongly believe that criminal cases should be tried in front of a jury in court, not in
newspapers, on television and in public opinion. But Terry Lamphier has been targeted by press releases from the Sheriff, “disclosures” by the County he was serving as a Supervisor, and comments from his elected peers in Grass Valley. For me the final straw was the opinion column by Steve Enos, published in The Union on March 15.
In order to promote more balanced discussion of the charges against Mr. Lamphier I am
providing three documents with this release: 1) the Sheriff’s report of the interview with Mr. Enos on October 29, 2014; 2) a copy of the article Mr. Enos dropped off in the anonymous envelope (which is about resignation of the mayor in Dudley, Great Britain) and; 3) A copy of the letter from the Fair Political Practices Commission rejecting Mr. Enos’ complaint against Terry Lamphier.
A comparison of these materials with Enos’ article quickly reveals that there were
significant omissions and misrepresentations in his column. He failed to mention that he first made contact with county personnel to request a surveillance check of Terry’s computers in May, just before the primary election. He failed to mention when that check failed to find any improper computer use he then wrote to the FPPC attacking Terry’s campaign for City Council. And of course he did not mention that the rejection of his FPPC complaint took place on October 21, and his ‘anonymous’ letter at the county was dropped on October 22. Clearly he was conducting a secret politically-motivated campaign against Terry.
It is also clear from the Sheriff’s interview that Mr. Enos had absolutely no basis in fact
for any accusation of improper computer use. He allegedly acted based on statements he
overheard from third parties, and which he decided could be given a dramatic twist.
Although Mr. Enos apparently has little regard for the truth, his actions raise some
interesting questions. Who was his contact at the county? How many times between May and October did county employees search Mr. Lamphier’s computer history? Did the county check the computer that was given to him in September before he began to use it? Why did Enos talk to his contact at the county in May, and then go through the sham of an anonymous letter in October? Did the county know from the beginning that Enos dropped the letter? If this case is presented in court perhaps these questions will be answered. I am sure there will not be any evidence that Mr. Lamphier ever possessed child pornography, but we may find out who was after him and why. That is the real crime in this scenario.


Nevada County Sheriffs Office
Witness Statement: Steve Enos
Enos stated he had a long history with Terry Lamphier. He said he had recruited Lamphier to run for Supervisor four years ago. Enos stated they were on several committees together, knew Lamphier’s girlfriend ___________ well, and knew a lot of the same people. He said he was afraid of Lamphier at this point, because Lamphier had tried to taunt him in the past.
Enos stated he believed Lamphier was a psychopath. He said he was friends with _____________ who had worked on Lamphier’s campaign. Enos stated ______ told him ___ had many interactions with Lamphier on the campaign, which __ felt bordered on violence. Enos stated while Lamphier had not done anything to indicate
he would be physically violent towards him, he had seen behavior from Lamphier which he believed to be bizarre. He did not elaborate any further.
Enos stated his name was up on the blog of Jeff Pelline (Jeff Pelline’s Sierra Foothills Report) and Enos was now being taunted. He said Pelline had a history of attacking the Sheriff s Office over the past election with Lamphier and the upcoming Measure S election. Enos stated there were massive conversations occurring on the blog, and Patricia Smith was claiming the current investigation into Lamphier was a “hit job” by the Sheriff.
Enos stated he wanted to cooperate, but he was worried because Lamphier was missing and no one could locate him. He said Lamphier had missed the Board of Supervisors meeting earlier in the day. Enos surmised Lamphier had made an admission to the Sheriff s Office and was currently in hiding. He said he had read in the newspaper Lamphier’s toilet had been clogged at the time the search warrant was served, and he thought it was possible the toilet had become clogged after Lamphier attempted to destroy evidence.
Enos stated he thought Lamphier’s whole world was unraveling and it was possible Lamphier would blame other people for his mistakes. He said it was possible Lamphier would place blame on him, which was why he was concerned for his safety. I reminded Enos that he claimed to have recruited Lamphier for Supervisor four years ago and at the time did not consider him a threat. I also told Enos I had not seen anything to indicate he was in danger and as Lamphier was a public figure in a small community, any extremely unstable behavior would likely have surfaced by now. I told Enos whatever he told me would be documented in a report in addition to his name. Enos stated he understood and was willing to provide whatever information he knew.
Enos stated back in April or May of 2014 Lamphier was running for County Supervisor against Dan Miller. He said he overheard one half of a telephone conversation between Lamphier and another party. The other party was saying things like “Oh shit. I can’t believe it. That guy is an idiot.” Enos stated the conversation continued and the other party mentioned Lamphier may no longer run for Supervisor and also spoke about inappropriate use of government computers.
Enos stated through the conversation he learned that Lamphier had to turn in an iPad to the county, which may have had some inappropriate content. He clarified the conversation was between two people about Lamphier, as opposed to Lamphier being one half of the conversation. Enos stated Lamphier had relayed to the two people that he was worried about being “caught”. He said he heard a later conversation, which contained the word “pornography,” but did not specify child pornography. Enos stated the people involved in the conversation
were working on Lamphier’s campaign and had heard about the inappropriate activity on a Nevada County device directly from Lamphier.
Enos stated after overhearing the information he wanted to forward the information to the County somehow. He said he wanted to help the community and had a history of reporting narcotic and trespassing issues to law enforcement over the years. Enos stated he sought out someone he knew in the Nevada County government and relayed the information to them. He said if he had heard anything about child pornography he would have reported the incident to the Sheriff s Office rather than forwarding the information to someone in the County, who would move the information upstream.
Enos stated he did not hear anything for several months, but he had recently learned from the newspaper that the event was actionable by the County. He assumed the Sheriff s Office had examined Lamphier’s iPad several months ago based upon the information he provided to the County in May.
Enos stated it was well-known Lamphier does not have a computer in his residence, which many people considered strange. He said based upon the conversations he heard several months ago and his idea that Lamphier did not own a computer, he decided he needed to take further action.
RMS-001 v1.34 PRINTED: 12/24/2014 2:27:59 PMBY:3949 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PAGE 16 of 36
Enos stated he dropped a letter off at the County Executive Officer’s Office. He said he wanted to pass some information to Lamphier which might cause him to “pull his head out of his ass” and stop Lamphier from engaging in inappropriate behavior. Enos stated his motivation was more of an intervention than anything. He said inside the letter he enclosed an article from the East Coast, which showed a Mayor who was fired for viewing pornography on City devices.
Enos stated his belief was Lamphier would straighten up and he left the letter on October 21st, 2014. He said as the letter was addressed to Lamphier, he thought Lamphier would be the person to open it. Enos stated he did not want to make charges against Lamphier and had no knowledge there was any child pornography involved. He said he thought Lamphier would make some adjustments and move on. Enos stated he was unaware it was policy for the clerk of the Board of Supervisors to open the letter.
Enos stated he later discovered the clerk had opened the letter and forwarded the information to the CEO or Assistant CEO. He said he did not tell anyone about the letter and no one asked him to send the letter. Enos stated repeatedly he knew nothing about child pornography and thought the extent of Lamphier’s inappropriate activity was viewing pornography on a government computer.
Enos stated he was confident Lamphier had cleaned his computers of inappropriate content back in May when he first forwarded the information to the County. He said he was confident if anyone had known Lamphier was viewing child pornography back in May they would have reported the information directly to the Sheriff’s Office. Enos stated he had no motivation or political aspirations and was not seeking to benefit from
Lamphier’ s situation.
Enos was obviously hesitant to provide me with the names of the people whose conversation he had heard back in May but eventually provided the names ____________, __________, and ____________. He said they were all good people and were working on Lamphier’ s campaign together.
I showed Enos an article, which had been provided by Alison Lehman and a piece of paper with the words “Heads up, people know, including your supporters.” I asked Enos if he recognized the documents. Enos confirmed the article was the same article he had enclosed in the envelope and left at the Board of Supervisor’s Office. He confirmed the text was similar, but said he believed what he wrote was “Heads up, other people know, including your supporters.”
Enos stated he did not intend to warn Lamphier so Lamphier could destroy evidence, because he thought Lamphier was just violating a County policy by viewing pornography on his County computer. He surmised there were stacks of evidence against Lamphier, and he would take a plea deal.
Enos stated he was aware his name would eventually be disclosed in a crime report, which would go to Lamphier. I advised Enos to seek a restraining order if he felt it was necessary and directed him to seek assistance from the courthouse. He said he wanted to prevent Lamphier or his attorneys from seeking to evade culpability for Lamphier’s actions. Enos stated he believed, given the right opportunity, Lamphier would acknowledge his guilt and make adjustments as necessary.
Enos requested I notify him if and when his name was released to the press or to Lamphier. End of statement
I provided Enos with my business card and requested he contact us if he had any further information.
I went to the blog of Jeff Pelline and scanned the blog but did not find anything other than opinions on both sides of the issue. Nothing pertinent to the report was located. (See media)
RMS-001 v1.34 PRINTED: 12/24/20142:27:59 PMBY: 3949 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PAGE 19 of 38



428 .I Street • Suite 620 • Sac ramento, CA 95814-2329

October 21 , 2014
Re: Sworn Complaint Regarding Terry Lamphier
Dear Mr. Enos:
This letter acknowledges that the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC) has received your complaint alleging a violation of the Political
Reform Act’s conflict of interest prohibition. After review by staff: it was determined
that there is no evidence of such a violation in your complaint because campaign
contributions generally do not give rise to conflict of interest among elected officials
acting in their elected capacities. Government Code Section 84308 was added to the Act
to ensure that appointed members of boards or commissions would not be biased by
campaign contributors or potential contributors who might appear before them in a
proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use; however,
Section 84308 does not apply to officers in a proceeding before a local government
agency whose members are directly elected by the voters. (GC Sec. 84308(a)(3).).
~s. Winuk – /
r:.,~// Chief, Enforcement Division
cc: Terry Lamphier V

KNCO Web Comments Guidelines

  1. Keep it clean. Comments with inappropriate language, no matter how cleverly spelled or decorated will not be posted.
  2. Comments on the way the story was written or misspelled words will be passed on to the story authors and not posted.
  3. Please use your real name. Anonymous comments or comments posted using a fake name or web handle may not be posted.
  4. Please use your real email address so we can contact you.
  5. No flaming. Any comments that are primarily of a name calling finger pointing nature may not be posted.
  6. The comment section is not a right it is a privilege. KNCO retains all rights as to what is posted on its website.

Leave A Comment



* captcha