A retired D.C. police officer has been convicted of lying to authorities about leaking sensitive information to the leader of the Proud Boys extremist group. Former Metropolitan Police Department Lt. Shane Lamond was found guilty on Monday by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson after a seven-day bench trial. Lamond’s conviction follows accusations of obstructing justice and providing Enrique Tarrio, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys, with confidential updates concerning his legal troubles.
Lamond, who supervised the police department’s intelligence branch responsible for monitoring extremist groups, was charged with leaking details about an investigation linked to Tarrio burning a Black Lives Matter banner. The incident occurred on December 12, 2020, and the subsequent investigation by the Metropolitan Police Department was classified as a potential hate crime. Tarrio, who was under investigation at the time, eventually pleaded guilty to the burning of the banner, which was stolen from a historic Black church.
The trial showcased various exchanged communications between Lamond and Tarrio, highlighting their relationship which prosecutors argue went beyond professional boundaries. U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves stated, "Lamond turned his job on its head—providing confidential information to a source, rather than getting information from him," adding, “His violation of the trust placed in him put our community more at risk and cannot be ignored.”
Evidence presented during the trial detailed how Lamond had communicated with Tarrio regularly, establishing contact as early as 2019. The messages between the two increased significantly after the 2020 presidential election, which saw frequent discourse over platforms including iMessage and Telegram. These discussions often included updates about the status of the investigation related to the burned Black Lives Matter banner, alerts about the developments, and tacit expressions of support for the Proud Boys organization.
During his testimony, Lamond denied providing Tarrio with sensitive police information; he characterized their relationship as one of intelligence gathering, saying, "I don't support the Proud Boys, and I'm not a Proud Boys sympathizer." Despite this, Judge Jackson emphasized the nature of their communication, concluding, "The defendant was not using Tarrio as a source; it was the other way around." She stated her belief was rooted firmly in evidence showing Lamond provided real-time updates to Tarrio about police activities and investigations.
Tarrio, currently serving time for his role related to the January 6 insurrection, took the stand as Lamond’s defense witness. He, too, attempted to distance himself from the assertions made by prosecutors. When confronted with evidence of the numerous messages exchanged, he replied with uncertainty, saying he either couldn’t recall or did not trust the validity of the evidence presented to him. His testimony included claims he wanted to be arrested for the banner burning to create publicity—further complicity to the case against Lamond.
Judge Jackson is expected to impose sentencing on April 3, 2025. With the conviction for obstruction of justice carrying significant penalties, Lamond could face up to thirty years behind bars, pending the court's decision. The outcome of this case raises pressing questions about the integrity of police officers who interact with extremist groups and the broader implications for public trust and safety.
The case surfaces against the backdrop of heightened scrutiny on law enforcement’s handling of extremist group activities, as evidenced during the violent January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Lamond’s actions, as outlined during the trial, are indicative of lapses where police officers may turn from their primary duty of protecting community interests to engaging with those who threaten it.
Following the January 6 riot, where members of the Proud Boys actively participated, Lamond's relationships are now under fierce examination. Tarrio himself has publicly stated affiliations with former President Donald Trump, who at one time remarked the Proud Boys should “stand back and stand by,” signaling support for the group amid public tensions.
With Lamond’s impending sentencing, the case acts as both cautionary and significant for police-community relations and indicates the challenges authorities face when confronting political violence and extremist rhetoric. Law enforcement’s ability to maintain objectivity and the trust of the communities they serve is pivotal, as cases like Lamond's highlight potential conflicts of interests and undermined authority.
Overall, as the legal proceedings continue, the ramifications of Lamond's trial serve as reminders of the trust bestowed upon law enforcement and the dire consequences of actions perceived as betrayals of public service. Society looks forward to the justice's outcome, not just for the former officer but for the integrity of law enforcement as institutions navigate through politically charged atmospheres.
