Maybe Never Bill Williams, investigative news reporter May 2024
Prescott Valley, Arizona Mayor Kell Palguta… once decorated but now a disgraced former Prescott Valley cop who was demoted (Sergeant to corporal) and got his pay docked in 2013 after being on probation in 2011… shot one man near the old Circle-K at Robert Road and Highway 69… and that turned into a high-speed chase, resulting in 3 deaths at the intersection of Gurley and Montezuma Streets in Prescott in January 2001…. Then accused of falsifying time sheets… Accused of investigating one of his own while on duty in July and August 2010… where this sordid story begins…
Palguta’s partner, Officer Matt Hepperle, (husband of PV councilwoman April Hepperle), and Palguta, investigated fellow PV cop ‘Detective P’ going to a widow’s house on Tuesdays and Thursdays in his vehicle and having sex on a regular basis and playing “find the pills and marijuana.” The discipline and strong language meted out by PV PD Commander Fessler is at the close of this report.
Palguta and Hepperle’s confidential informant was a hair stylist (who liked to drink) they met at a local gym and later partied with her at poolside. There’s even a sketch of the pool and BBQ in police reports, but I won’t rat out the gym or the hair salon or the woman by name.
One witness said she thought Hepperle heard about it “in the pool.”
There is testimony that the widow kept photos of the encounters. And that she called the detective by nickname ‘Poncho,’ and later became “concerned that the relationship was affecting children,” whatever that means. One witness told PVPD detectives that Poncho was believed to be married and the children at the paramour’s house caught them on one occasion.
The entire salon and many customers knew of the whole story. But where the action crossed the line was when Palguta and Hepperle hatched a scheme to get a witness to speak with a Yavapai County Sheriff’s Deputy “J” to investigate, presumably so they could keep their hands clean and get it out of PVPD, but that’s a policy violation.
Later, Deputy J told PV investigators he spoke with Palguta on a regular basis. Witness after witness told PV investigators that once they told Palguta and Hepperle about it, they “thought the matter was handled.” Then-sergeant Kell Palguta admitted that he did not advise his chain of command per policy. Deputy J even surveilled the woman’s house to learn more. Over and over again in documents obtained by this reporter, Palguta told investigators he informed sheriff’s deputy J about information obtained from Hepperle. And he threw his own partner under the bus when he told investigators he urged Hepperle to put the witness in touch with deputy J. Hepperle admitted to investigators that he did so. Investigators wrote that Palguta could have gone to his superiors but never did, and that even though he outlined distrust in sharing the information with his supervisor; Lieutenant M, he was in a position as a supervisor to report directly to Commander Fessler or Lieutenant Nelson. He did not approach either Commander Fessler or Lieutenant Nelson with this information.
In the end, PVPD Commander Fessler wrote the conclusion…. That neither officer acted within Prescott Valley Police policy to provide the information to their immediate supervisor about another’s misconduct as required, and that they violated Prescott Valley Police General Orders; Volume 3; sec 810 when they informed the sheriff’s deputy, and participated in an investigation with an outside agency.
These, and other actions that will be reported soon, sullied what started out as a nice career with commendations and a rookie of the year award but deteriorated into ‘inappropriate conduct,’ (in a separate report about Palguta) a citizen’s complaint against him, questions surrounding not passing two weapons inspections, verbal reprimand regarding his vehicle inspection, questions of shift adjustment (which could be a time sheet incident, stay tuned) along with inappropriate comments made to people, the losing of his pager which required counselling, and on 03/23/2010: Counseling on prohibited Drug Investigation.
Commander Fessler harpooned Hepperle in his final summation when he wrote; ‘If these actions of Officer Matt Hepperle are so innocent as to just passing information on to his Supervisor, Sergeant Kell Palguta, as he (Officer Matt Hepperle) describes, why was there such a lack of clarity in Officer Matt Hepperle’s involvement and coordination with his Supervisor, Sergeant Kell Palguta?’ And that ‘This viewed in a reasonable person test, lays credence or at least suspicion that there was an actual plan.’ And the commander singled out the instance of the giving of a sheriff’s phone number to a witness as… ‘the phone number of Deputy J to her at the direction of Sergeant Kell Palguta, supporting the fact that Sergeant Kell Palguta was not acting in a rational nor professional supervisory capacity, and in violation of department policy by involving his assigned officer, Officer Matt Hepperle, to engage in the furtherance of egregious alleged misconduct of a Prescott Valley Police Officer.
And then the commander turned his harpoon to Palguta…. ‘Sergeant Kell Palguta maintains that he did not feel the information was credible and felt the information was outlandish, yet continued’ coordinating and facilitating efforts of his officer, Matt Hepperle, while being aware of the confidentiality, conflicts of interests and officer safety issues that are raised in personal conduct.
Commander Fessler wrote “These factors as outlined in these AR’s are (1) info of sexual activity (2) an allegation of possible destruction of paperwork; (3) allegations of discovery of illegal contraband; “games” of hide and seek with drugs alleged to be occurring with Detective P and (4) texts of his Detective P’s conduct being texts to community members lending credibility to the allegations, and with all these factors, Sergeant Kell Palguta felt that it was in his best judgement to confide with Sheriff’s Deputy J, from an outside Agency as to what to do. Sergeant Kell Palguta then ultimately took direction from Deputy J and allowed the deputy to pursue an investigation on one of Prescott Valley’s Police Officers, again, knowing that this was in violation of department policy.
According to documents obtained, Commander Fessler believes Palguta could have gone around certain lieutenants he did not want to confide in and come directly to him, the commander, but did not… and as a Prescott Valley Police Department supervisory representative, Sergeant Kell Palguta should have provided direction to his officer, Officer Matt Hepperle, and advised him to not discuss this information with anyone and that he (Sergeant Kell Palguta) would take it up the Chain of Command, but he did not.
Commander Fessler believed Palguta’s rationalization of coming forward or not coming forward and covering up or not covering up, is not an acceptable rationalization of a Prescott Valley Supervisor nor would it be an acceptable Supervisor character at any level of Supervision in Law Enforcement knowing the involved allegations as stated. “These responses seem to present themselves as non-concerning and of a laissez-faire, careless nature as a Supervisor,” he wrote. “This belief or mindset of this type of conduct as a Supervisory representative of the Prescott Valley Police Department concerns me and will cause a constant review of Sergeant Kell Palguta’s actions and decision-making capabilities on issues of this nature in the future.” Palguta would leave the department by about 2014.
Commander Fessler finished by recommending the following;
Thirty (30) hours Disciplinary Suspension Without Pay from duty.
Immediate Removal from Community Resource Team (CRT) Specialty Assignment.
Not authorized for submittal and or reassignment to any Specialty Assignments for 12 months.
Not authorized to participate with Department instruction to include NARTA (the police academy) instruction for 12 months, to include Physical Fitness training at NARTA.
No on-duty and or off-duty scheduled assignments with Sergeant Kell Palguta for 24 months.
Six (6) months Disciplinary Probation
Written Reprimand for conduct related to this AR (AR10-22) and placed in his
Personnel file.
*Any further personal conduct / infractions related to the lack of adherence to department policy depending on the seriousness of the violation(s) will result in progressive discipline up to and including termination of employment with the Prescott Valley Police Department,” said Commander Fessler. Fessler gave Palguta the letter of reprimand including a mention of violation of code of conduct as well as a copy of Intent to Demote Police Officer.
Epilogue
This reporter respects cops and the current police administration in PVPD from Chief
Bob Ticer on down through the ranks.
Palguta’s conduct begs the question: is a person this lacking in judgement really able to serve as a mayor in a small Arizona town? Probably not but you can fool some of the
voters some of the time and all of the voters some of the time, but you can’t fool all of
the voters, nor any good news reporters, all of the time.
This article will be posted on Prescott Valley Beefs and Western News Service – both on
Facebook.
Bill Williams earned a masters in journalism at Iowa State University and has written
3,500 news articles over 40 years.
Views: 19
