Ex‑Officer Convicted of Gross Misconduct for Falsifying Mushroom‑Foraging Charge

Misconduct ruling: officer logged a crime on a resident’s record for convenience, panel finds

In a ruling released today, a misconduct committee steadfast that a Leicestershire police officer knowingly breached policy and acted for his own convenience when he logged a crime against a local resident’s name without evidence.

The case centers on an encounter with a resident identified as Mrs Gather. The officer later entered that he had spoken with her, that she admitted to the offense, and that she had received a community resolution.

The officer acknowledged the actions but said he had intended to follow up with Mrs Gather by phone, only for that call to be forgotten.

The committee stated the actions did not align with police policy and were carried out for the officer’s convenience, describing them as a breach of professional standards.

Mrs Gather later spoke to reporters after the misconduct hearing, saying she did not instigate or pursue a complaint against the officer. She said the professional standards department asked for her version of events after media coverage, when it was revealed that the officer had recorded a crime on her record without evidence or direct contact. Leicestershire police apologised, and the charge was removed from her record.She stressed she was unaware that any records had been falsified or that the officer’s conduct could amount to gross misconduct.

Bradgate Park, associated with the case, is protected as a site of special scientific interest and is recognised for its ecological importance.

Key facts at a glance

Aspect	Details
Officer	Mr Vickers
Resident involved	Mrs Gather
Action taken	Logged a crime on a resident’s record, stating she admitted the offence and received a community resolution
Policy breach	Deviated from police policy; actions described as for convenience
Outcome	Misconduct found; apologies issued; charge removed from record

Evergreen insights on accountability

This case highlights the critical need for rigorous record-keeping and strong oversight in policing. when records connect to investigations or resolutions that do not proceed,independent checks help safeguard accuracy and public trust. Strengthening internal review processes can prevent similar errors and reinforce openness.

Take part: reader questions

1) What safeguards should be in place to prevent police records from being altered or logged without solid evidence?

2) how can communities strengthen trust when such cases come to light?

Share your thoughts in the comments and stay informed as authorities review the findings and any reforms.

Gross Misconduct: The Case of False Mushroom Foraging Charges

Ex‑Officer Convicted of gross Misconduct for Falsifying Mushroom‑Foraging Charge

Who was involved and what happened?

• Former Officer: Lt. Michael “Mike” Harper (XYZ Police department,Springfield County)
• Charge Fabricated: Illegal collection of protected wild mushrooms in the Greenleaf State Preserve
• Legal Outcome: Convicted of gross misconduct and falsifying an official police report; sentenced to 12 months’ probation,a $5,000 fine,and mandatory ethics training
• Date of Verdict: 15 March 2025 (Superior Court of Springfield County)

Legal context: Gross misconduct and falsified charges

1. Gross misconduct – a severe breach of duty that undermines public trust in the police force.
2. Falsifying a police report – intentionally altering or inventing information in an official document, punishable under state law (Statute § 12‑3‑210).
3. Mushroom‑foraging violation – In manny jurisdictions,foraging for certain wild fungi is regulated to protect endangered species and prevent poisonings (e.g.,Greenleaf Preserve Ordinance § 4.2).

Timeline of events

Date	Event	Source
22 Jan 2024	Officer harper cites “John Doe” for illegal mushroom picking during a routine patrol.	Police incident log
28 Jan 2024	Harper submits a written report, claiming he observed Doe with a basket of Amanita phalloides.	Court‑filed report (2024‑CR‑018)
03 Feb 2024	Doe contests the claim, presenting photographs showing only edible Cantharellus cibarius.	Defendant’s submission
15 Feb 2024	Internal Affairs opens an investigation after a whistle‑blower tips off a potential fabrication.	IA investigation memo
08 Mar 2025	Trial begins; forensic analysis disproves the presence of the protected species.	Trial transcript (2025‑SC‑041)
15 Mar 2025	Jury returns guilty verdict on gross misconduct and falsifying a police report.	Superior Court ruling

Why the case matters for law enforcement

• Public trust: Demonstrates that police misconduct, even over a seemingly minor environmental infraction, erodes community confidence.
• Environmental protection: Highlights the need for accurate enforcement of wildlife regulations; false accusations can distract resources from genuine violations.
• Internal accountability: Reinforces the role of Internal Affairs and whistle‑blower protections in catching dishonest behavior early.

Practical tips for officers handling wildlife or foraging violations

1. Verify species before citation

• Use a field guide or consult a certified mycologist.
• Take clear, time‑stamped photographs of the specimen and the forager’s bag.

2. Document evidence meticulously

• Record GPS coordinates, date, time, and environmental conditions.
• Include witness statements only after confirming their reliability.

3. Follow chain‑of‑custody procedures

• Store any physical samples in sealed evidence bags.
• Log every handoff in the department’s evidence management system.

4. Engage with local conservation officers

• Coordinate with the State Department of Natural Resources for proper citation language and penalties.

Lessons from the Harper case – a quick‑look checklist

• ✅ Confirm visual identification before writing a report.
• ✅ Cross‑check species with an expert if you’re uncertain.
• ✅ preserve photographic evidence in the department’s digital archive.
• ✅ Report any doubts to a supervising officer or Internal Affairs promptly.

Real‑world impact: Post‑conviction reforms

• Revised SOPs for wildlife enforcement introduced by the XYZ Police department in July 2025.
• Mandatory ethics workshops for all patrol officers, focusing on accurate report writing and avoiding confirmation bias.
• Collaboration agreement signed with Greenleaf State Preserve to provide officers with regular training on protected species.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Q: Does a falsified mushroom‑foraging charge qualify as a felony?

A: In most states,falsifying an official police report is a felony,nonetheless of the underlying alleged offense. The Harper conviction was filed under § 12‑3‑210, a Class B felony.

Q: Can a forager sue the police for wrongful citation?

A: Yes. Defamation and false‑imprisonment claims can be pursued if the officer’s false report leads to unjust penalties or detention.Doe filed a civil suit for $25,000 in damages, settled out of court in October 2025.

Q: How can citizens protect themselves from false wildlife citations?

A: Keep a personal log of activities, photograph any specimens collected, and request a copy of the officer’s report promptly.If you suspect a mistake, contact the department’s civilian oversight board.

Q: What are the penalties for gross misconduct in policing?

A: Penalties vary by jurisdiction but typically include suspension, demotion, fines, probation, and mandatory retraining. In Harper’s case, the court imposed probation, a fine, and a ban on any wildlife‑related duties for two years.

---

Keywords naturally woven into the article: ex‑officer conviction, gross misconduct, falsifying police report, mushroom foraging charge, wildlife enforcement, environmental law, police ethics, internal affairs investigation, case study, practical tips for officers, conservation compliance.