Dec. 9—BEMIDJI — Nearly two years after
Ninth District Judge Eric Schieferdecker
called into question the character of Bidal Duran, who was a Hubbard County Sheriff Deputy at the time, an update has been issued related to a complaint Duran filed against the judge.
Duran, who was recently elected to represent Minnesota House 2A in November, filed the complaint following an incident
where he submitted a search warrant affidavit
following a traffic stop on a vehicle due to speeding in December 2022 while he was working for the sheriff’s office.
During the stop, 118 grams of methamphetamine, 15 grams of marijuana and $7,292 in cash were found in the vehicle, according to court documents.
Duran submitted a search warrant application to search the suspected meth traffickers’ cell phones but received a restricted warrant due to a lack of probable cause, which only allowed law enforcement to access the phones’ web history, search history and location data.
A couple of months later, a second affidavit with additional information was submitted in an attempt to widen the scope of the warrant. The new affidavit included information obtained from a confidential informant, who stated that he had been in contact with the driver of the vehicle and that “there is a large amount of illegal narcotics being brought to the area” by the driver, according to court documents.
Because of the additional information Duran provided, the second affidavit was denied and the authorization of the first affidavit was revoked. As a result, the case was eventually dismissed.
In the memorandum explaining his denial, Schieferdecker called Duran’s credibility into question for not including the information about the CI in his first affidavit.
“When granted a search warrant with a narrow scope, Agent Duran decided to add a few more details and ask for a broader scope in his second affidavit a few months later,” the memorandum reads. “His credibility as an affiant in each application is now called into question.”
Duran told the Pioneer during an October 2024 interview that he didn’t include the information from his informant in the first affidavit because it didn’t result in the traffic stop, though deputies were patrolling the area due to information from the CI.
As a result of the incident, an independent investigation was conducted on Duran by the Becker County Sheriff’s Office. According to documents detailing the investigation, it was determined that Duran did not violate department policy.
The officer who conducted the investigation expressed that the incident seemed to be the result of a lack of communication between Duran and the judge.
The way the case was handled led Duran to file a complaint against Schieferdecker, with the Board on Judicial Standards issuing a letter to Duran on Nov. 15 updating him on the status of the complaint.
“The board has completed consideration of your complaint against Ninth District Judge Eric Schieferdecker,” the letter said. “Your complaint alleged misconduct by Judge Schieferdecker, including intimidating demeanor, partiality, lack of fairness, and bias and prejudice against you and law enforcement officers in a case where Judge Schieferdecker revoked a previously issued search warrant and denied your application for an additional warrant.
“The Board investigated your allegations. After completing its investigation, the Board entered into a deferred disposition agreement with Judge Schieferdecker pursuant to Board Rule 6(f)(5)(i).
“If Judge Schieferdecker complies with the terms of the deferred disposition agreement, the Board will issue a letter of caution to him in two years.”
According to Board Rule 6(f)(5)(i),
“(5) If the board finds there is reasonable cause to believe the judge committed misconduct, it may: (i) enter into a deferred disposition agreement for a period of time, and the agreement may specify the disposition upon completion.”
The
Judicial Standards website
further explains that “Where the Code violation and misconduct are ‘isolated and non-serious,’ the Board may issue a private admonition. Rule 6(f)(5)(ii), R. Bd. Jud. Stds. The Board and judge may also enter into a deferred disposition agreement, which upon completion may result in discipline or no discipline. Rule 6(f)(5)(i), R. Bd. Jud. Stds.
“Where the Board finds there is not reasonable cause to find misconduct, it may nonetheless issue a letter of caution. Rule 6(f)(4). However, a letter of caution is not disciplinary.”
According to Law Insider, a letter of caution is a written caution or warning about past or future conduct issued when it is determined that only minor misconduct, not warranting discipline, has been committed.
The issuance of a letter of caution is not a form of discipline and does not constitute a finding of misconduct unless the letter of caution specifically states that misconduct has been committed. While nondisciplinary, the fact that a letter of caution has been issued may be considered in a subsequent disciplinary proceeding.
The Pioneer requested further information relating to the terms of the disposition agreement, however, the Board cited Rule 5 of the Rules of Board on Judicial Standards, which states in part that “… all proceedings shall be confidential until the Formal Complaint or Formal Statement of Disability Proceeding and response, if any, have been filed with the Supreme Court…”
Duran sees the letter, however ambiguous the outcome, as a win for him and his reputation.
“I have always believed in justice and accountability, even when I am the one being judged,” Duran said in a release. “This outcome reaffirms my faith in due process and my commitment to serving Minnesotans with the integrity that has guided me throughout my life.”