How Las Vegas Metro Police Intelligence collared Detective Lawrence Rinetti - Baltimore Post-ExaminerBaltimore Post-Examiner

How Las Vegas Metro Police Intelligence collared Detective Lawrence Rinetti

LAS VEGAS — On October 21 the Baltimore Post-Examiner broke the story Las Vegas Metro Police Detective Lawrence Rinetti arrested on multiple charges.’  The story was then picked up by the Las Vegas media.

KLAS-TV Las Vegas, after petitioning Las Vegas Justice Court, obtained last week a redacted Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) Declaration of Arrest Report, Event # LLV19060005-9366, pertaining to the arrest of LVMPD Detective Lawrence Joseph Rinetti, Jr.

Rinetti was charged with “sell, transport, give controlled substance – Schedule I or II, misconduct of a public officer and destroy/conceal evidence” when he was arrested on October 18.

Detectives from the LVMPD’s Criminal Intelligence Section conducted the investigation into Rinetti.  That section has the responsibility for investigating allegations of criminal conduct involving public officials, elected, appointed and employees of governmental agencies.  They also conduct court-authorized pen registers/trap traces, wiretaps, and other electronic surveillance techniques as part of their investigative process.

LVMPD police officers who have spoken to the Baltimore Post-Examiner over the years have referred to the Criminal Intelligence Section as the “black bag squad” and the “sheriff’s dirty tricks squad,” alleging that the section has often-times been used to “dig up dirt” and conduct illegal surveillance operations on police officers who are not in favor with the sheriff (past and present) and political officials.

One story that was told to the Baltimore Post-Examiner involved Intelligence detectives burglarizing years ago the Las Vegas hotel room of rap-music producer Suge Knight and waiting for him to return to “intimidate” Knight into leaving Las Vegas.  We were told that the detectives involved later bragged about drinking Knight’s liquor and smoking his cigars as they waited for him to return to his hotel room.

Whether or not the Criminal Intelligence section has conducted illegal surveillance operations on anyone would be a moot point since illegal electronic surveillance done without a court-order would be impossible to detect.  The LVMPD has a technical section called TASS that does the electronic surveillance installs when needed on a case.

That being said, the LVMPD’s Criminal Intelligence Section has made numerous cases over the years that have been adjudicated through the criminal justice system.  They often-times work jointly with the FBI Las Vegas Division.

The following account is from the Declaration of Arrest Report.

I have substituted “Jane” as the female involved in this case, that is not her real name. “Rinetti” refers to Lawrence J. Rinetti Jr.  I have obtained the personal and work cellphone of Rinetti believed to be the ones described in the Declaration but will not publish those numbers.  More on that later.  There are major redactions in the Declaration referring to addresses, names and content and other information.  [R] indicates redacted entries.

ANATOMY OF INVESTIGATING A COP

The undersigned makes the following declarations subject to the penalty of perjury and says: That I am a peace officer with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, being so employed for a period of approximately 12 years.

That I learned the following facts and circumstances which lead me to believe that the above-named subject committed or was committing the offenses above at the location of [R], NV 89115 and that the offense(s) occurred at approximately 1200 hours on the 17th day of January 2019.

DETAILS FOR PROBABLE CAUSE: SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION

On June 13, 2019, detectives with the LVMPD Criminal Intelligence Section were made aware of lawfully recorded conversations where subjects were stating a female, Jane, is in “love with a cop.”  Conversation further suggested the “cop” is a detective and is known as “Lorenzo”.  Your Declarant was able to identify Jane and “Lorenzo” as Lawrence Rinetti Jr.  During the investigation, it was learned through toll records, physical surveillance and electronic surveillance that Rinetti and Jane have frequent physical and telephonic communication which led investigators to believe they are in a personal relationship.  It was further learned through reliable sources and through toll records from July 31st, 2018 until September 30th, 2019, Rinetti and Jane have contacted each other approximately 16, 683 times via made or attempted voice calls and text messages.  70 percent of that contact was made by Rinetti which leads investigators to believe that Rinetti is possessive over Jane.

There have been numerous documented incidents that indicate Rinetti has assisted in preventing Jane from being arrested for felony warrants.  These warrants were associated with a case involving Jane (a felon) being in possession of a firearm and a stolen motor vehicle.  Your Declarant knows Jane did provide accurate information to assist law enforcement, but investigators also believe Rinetti and Jane have a personal relationship and Rinetti is using his authority as a detective with LVMPD to assist Jane for his own personal gain, which is maintaining a personal relationship with Jane.

[R].  Through the investigation detailed below, your Declarant believes Rinetti unlawfully removed at least 47 grams of ODV positive Methamphetamine and provided those narcotics to Jane.

DETAILS:

On June 13, 2019, your Declarant learned of an ongoing investigation by the LVMPD Gang Unit.  Through their investigation, detectives within the gang unit obtained lawfully recorded phone calls.  LVMPD Gang Unit detectives were made aware of two separate phone calls from subjects talking about Jane and Lorenzo; those subjects believed Rinetti and Jane were in a dating relationship.  [6 lines redacted].

Another conversation was intercepted between [R] while [R] was incarcerated in the Nevada Department of Corrections, High Desert State Prison. [All calls made through the inmate calling system are recorded for archiving and monitoring by law enforcement.  Prior to completion of any call made through the system a recorded disclaimer is played which indicates calls made through the system are monitored].  This conversation took place on [R].  During the conversation [R] states, ‘Don’t play me because if you think I can’t pull a [R] I definitely can too.”  [R] replies, “What the fuck!!! Me and [R] is my best friend’s girl.”  [R] further states ‘he don’t fuck with her either, she’s in love with a cop, and he hates her.”

Through a separate investigation in September 2018 [Investigation completed under LVMPD Event 180919-2758 and Case number 1904603X], your Declarant was able to identify [R] and the police officer they were referring to as [R] and Rinetti respectively.  During this conversation, Rinetti provided your Declarant with information from this source, who he identified to your Declarant as [R].  Through law enforcement sources and through records obtained at Clark County Detention Center (CCDC), investigators believe Jane and Rinetti first came in contact with one another in June 2018.  It is also believed this contact involved Rinetti using Jane as a source of information for law enforcement purposes.

While attempting to verify the facts of this current investigation and determine if there was a personal relationship between Rinetti and Jane, a Pen Register with Trap and Trace (PRTT) was applied for and granted by the Honorable Judge Tierra Jones of the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada for Rinetti’s personal phone [R] on June 14th, 2019.  On June 18, 2019 Judge Silva of the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada granted a Pen Register with Trap and Trace for Rinetti’s work phone [R].  An analysis of these records was completed by LVMPD Senior Analyst T. Howe.

(A Pen Register, also called a dialed number recorder, is an electronic device placed on a subscribers line that records the telephone number of outgoing calls.  It is not a wiretap.  It does not record the actual audio, although unless the technology is different than when I used Pen’s many years ago, all that was needed to listen to the audio was the insertion of headphones into the jack.  If that was done you are then conducting a wiretap without a court-order which is a violation of state and federal law which could end you up in prison.  A trap and trace device would show all incoming numbers. In this case the police had a court order for both a pen register and a trap and trace device.)

Through the analysis, it was determined Rinetti and Jane had approximately 16,683 contacts via completed or attempted voice calls and text messages from July 31st, 2018 until September 30th, 2019.  Seventy percent of these communications were made by Rinetti.  It was also determined the communications took place between Rinetti’s work phone and Jane’s phone.  However, there were communications between Rinetti’s personal phone, Jane’s phone and Jane’s mother’s phone.

Based on this information, a PRTT with Precision Location was applied for and granted by the Honorable Judge Silva on July 12th, 2019 for Rinetti’s work phone and Jane’s phone, and thereafter phones listed above, to include historical call logs and location information from June 1st, 2018.  A detailed analysis of this information was concluded by Senior Analyst Howe.  The information showed Jane’s and Rinetti’s phones were in the same area on multiple occurrences, both while Rinetti was working his normal working hours and during hours he was not supposed to be working.

On June 24th, 2019, your Declarant and Detective Stanton P#4717 conducted an interview with a confidential source to gain further understanding of Rinetti and Jane’s relationship.

The true identity of the source is known to your Declarant but will not be revealed in this affidavit due to fear for the sources safety if the person at whom this investigation is directed learn the sources identity.  If ordered to do so by this Honorable Court at the subsequent time, your Declarant will provide the identity of the source to the court.  The source has been informed that any information given must be accurate and truthful.  The source has provided information to your Declarant on other occasions which has been deemed reliable by your source regarding the subject offenses on this case.  The source has a pending felony charge which he/she is providing information to in attempts to gain leniency on the criminal prosecution.

During the interview the source mentioned an incident that took place at [R] on [R].  During this incident the source explained how Jane was taken into custody by LVMPD officers for multiple felony warrants and placed in a marked patrol car.  The source stated the residence belonged to a female the source knew as [R] who was identified as [R].  Shortly after the incident concluded, [R] and the source believed Jane was released so quickly because of Rinetti.  The source believed this due to Jane having multiple felony warrants and calling the source shortly after the incident occurred.  The source knew Jane could not have been arrested and released in this time period.  Your Declarant was able to locate this event under LVMPD event [R].  This event is explained in further detail below.

JANE’S POLICE CONTACT SINCE ASSOCIATION WITH RINETTI         

[R].  To further corroborate the information provided by the source regarding Rinetti and Jane’s relationship, your Declarant reviewed the body worn camera (BWC) associated with LVMPD Event [R].  During this event, Jane was detained for active felony warrants and she was handcuffed.  While an officer was conducting a search of Jane she mentioned multiple times that she was “working” for numerous officers.

[“Working” is terminology confidential informants (CI’s) often use when speaking with members of law enforcement to alert law enforcement they are a CI.  This is done in attempts to have the member of law enforcement contact the officer who is in charge of the CI, so the CI could avoid going to jail.  CI is someone who has greed to provide law enforcement personnel with information for payment or for assistance in criminal prosecutions.  This is not always the case.  Some of my biggest cases as a criminal investigator were made by CI’s who were doing it solely for personal reasons and/or revenge.]

While Jane is being placed in the back of the patrol car she is repeatedly asking the officer to call a “U.S. Marshal named Lorenzo Rinetti”.  [Police officers assigned to federal task forces are normally sworn as Special Deputy U.S. Marshals]. During the conversation, she provided the officer with a phone number [R], which is Rinetti’s work number.

The officer kept his body-worn camera on during this interaction and while he calls Rinetti, your Declarant believes the officer as speaking with Rinetti because the officer repeats Rinetti’s last name and his LVMPD personnel number “9036” while he is on the phone.  It is unknown what the exact conversation between Rinetti and the officer was, but after the conversation, the officer talked with other officers on the scene and confirmed they would be releasing Jane because she is working with “Detective Lorenzo”.

While watching the BWC from this incident on [R] your Declarant noticed a tattoo on Jane’s back which stated [R].  Later your Declarant viewed BWC from LVMPD Event [R] which occurred on [R] and Jane had a new tattoo with [R] and [R] which translates to [R].  A detailed account of this event is documented further below.

PETIT LARCENY/TRESPASS FROM JC PENNEY  

On [R] Patrol Officers were dispatched to the Meadows Mall reference a Petit Larceny under LVMPD Event [R].  During this event, Jane was taken into custody for stealing items from JC Penney’s.  It is unknown to your Declarant what was stolen or how Jane was taken into custody.  Your Declarant contacted Loss Prevention at this location, and they could not locate any reports with her information due to getting a new computer system and the employees who were involved in the incident no longer working with JC Penney.

When patrol officers arrived, Jane was in custody and already in the security office.  Your Declarant reviewed the BWC from the event.  Patrol officers arrived and went directly to the security office and met with the Loss Prevention Officer.  Jane was detained with four other unrelated individuals.  While the Loss Prevention officer was briefing the patrol officer, he stated he wanted the four individuals trespassed and he wanted to press charges against Jane.  After a short time, the patrol officer brought Jane out of the main building area and Jane stated she wanted to speak with the patrol officers.  At that point the BWC was turned off.  Later, per the BWC of the incident, Jane was released after the officers spoke with Rinetti.  While they were transporting Jane to her vehicle, she was talking to the patrol officer about Rinetti’s work on the US Marshal Task Force.  It is unknown what was said in the patrol officer’s conversation with Rinetti.  Per the BWC, the Loss Prevention Officer seemed upset Jane was not charged with stealing items.  The patrol officer apologized to the Loss Prevention Officer and told him if Jane was ever on property again, to call the police and she would be arrested.

Per computer automated dispatch (CAD), Jane was taken into custody by Loss Prevention Officers around 2206 hours.  Per the historical toll records, Rinetti was contacting Jane from 2146 hours until he was contacted by one of the officers on the scene at 2250 hours from his work phone.  A criminal history inquiry was completed by one of the officers on the scene for Jane at 2247 hours and released at approximately 2310 hours.  It appears Rinetti contacted Jane three times after she was released, two voice calls and one text message, again from his work phone.  It does not appear Jane answered the calls, based on the length of the call, and she did not respond to the text message.

WITNESS AT WEST CARE

On [R] patrol officers were stopped by a citizen stating he just became a victim of a robbery while he was leaving West Care.  [ A facility to assist people with alcohol and narcotic addictions while they are detoxing].  The citizen stated two subjects approached him at gunpoint while he was leaving and stole narcotics from him.  The citizen stated the two subjects were there visiting a female, later identified as Jane and bringing her prescription medication.  One of the males was described as a white male adult with a shaved head.  Officers responded to West Care and made contact with Jane.

Per BWC, when officers arrived, Jane was sitting on a bench in front of the facility.  The supervisor of West Care met the officers at the front door and called Jane and asked her to go inside.  Officers spoke to Jane for a few minutes and she stated she was a “CI so I would have no problem telling you guys the truth.”  Later, Jane is observed filling out a voluntary statement, when she completed the statement, she handed it to an officer and on the BWC you could clearly see written [R].  When the officers were leaving, one of the officers began talking about how he spoke with the detective, and the BWC was turned off.  It is unknown if he is referring to speaking with Rinetti or detectives reference the event they were on.

Per BWC, it appears the officers made contact with Jane around 0055 hours.  Per the historical toll records, Jane sent Rinetti a text message on his personal cell phone, [R] at 0011 hours.  It appears patrol officers on scene conducted a record check for criminal history information on Jane at 0120 hours.  The next communication on Rinetti’s phone occurred at 0556 hours when Rinetti called Jane from his work phone.

STOLEN VEHICLE

On [R] Jane was stopped while she was a passenger in a stolen vehicle under LVMPD Event number [R].  During the event, the officers conducted a record check on her and noticed her felony warrants.  Per the CAD, the officers were notified at 1756 hours of her warrants.  Per an offline search, [An offline search is a record check through SCOPE or NCIC, which provides information regarding law enforcement personnel who have conducted criminal history inquiries on subjects] it was learned that Officer M. Rodriquez P#17230 conducted a record search for criminal history information on her at 1755 hours.  Rinetti receives a phone call from Detective Poulson P#9023, who is a detective with LVMPD, assigned to Narcotics, at approximately 1830 and they speak for over ten minutes.  Through the investigation, it was determined that Poulson signed Jane up as a CI with the FBI and she was working for them.  A record check was conducted with the FBI on August 22nd, 2019 and your Declarant confirmed she has never been signed up as a CI for them.  Per the historical toll data, Poulson and Rinetti have frequent contact with each other however, Jane has had contact with Poulson from her phone, however that contact is far less than the contact Jane has with Rinetti from his work phone.  Your Declarant also learned from Rinetti that he is in contact with Poulson and Poulson provided him with a birthday present.  Based on this, your Declarant believes Poulson and Rinetti also have a personal relationship.

The interaction between Jane and the patrol officers on the stop was captured by BWC.  A review of the video showed Jane in custody for her warrants.  Officers are also overheard on the BWC stating Jane was going to jail for her warrants.  The video stops recording for a while and when the recording starts again, the officers are releasing Jane.  While she was being released from her handcuffs, your Declarant [R].  Per other events associated with Jane your Declarant knows [R] was stopped on [R].

A review of the historical toll records from Rinetti’s work phone shows he made a phone call to Jane’s mothers’ phone, [R] at 1857 hours after Jane was released.  The call lasted over five minutes.  After the initial call, Jane called Rinetti on his work phone, then it appears a series of text messages occurred between the two.  Through the investigation, it appears Jane uses her mothers’ phone on various occasions.  Your Declarant believes this due to the type and frequency of contacts to and from Rinetti when Jane has a known phone number.

SURVEILLANCE OPERATIONS

On July 17th, 2019, Detective Snodgrass and Detective Morris were in the area of Tomsik Street and Charleston Boulevard in attempts to locate Jane and Rinetti.  Investigators believed this was a temporary address for Jane and were attempting to locate her.  When they arrived in the area, Detective Snodgrass observed Rinetti’s unmarked LVMPD vehicle and went to another location to continue surveillance.

A short time later, Detective Morris drove on Tomsik Street and passed Rinetti’s unmarked LVMPD vehicle.  After Detective Morris turned off of Tomsik Street and onto Charleston Boulevard, Rinetti drove away in his unmarked LVMPD vehicle and ended up directly behind Detective Morris.  Detective Morris and Rinetti drove the same direction until they were in the area of Alta and Cimarron.  At this point, Detective Morris slowed his vehicle down while going across a small dip in the road.  According to Detective Morris, Rinetti became very close to detective Morris’ vehicle with his vehicle.  Detective Morris was able to observe Rinetti in his vehicle become very upset and it appeared as if he was yelling at Detective Morris.  Detective Morris stated that he was “screaming to the point veins were bulging from the side of his head and neck.”

Detective Morris pulled his vehicle over to the side of the road to let Rinetti pass him.  Detective Rinetti continued driving at which point Rinetti calmed down and quickly activated his emergency equipment.  Detective Morris drove the opposite direction and Rinetti did not follow him.

A record check was conducted and during this incident, Rinetti conducted a record check on Detective Morris’ license plate.  Investigators learned Detective Morris’ license plate returned to “no match”, which is common for most police vehicles.

Shortly after the incident, Detective Rinetti contacted another detective with the LVMPD, [R] to ask him if everything was alright and ask what section he worked in.  According to [R], it had been over a year since the two of them last spoke.  During the conversation, Rinetti asked normal questions, then stated he worked a half-day and was at a residence for his daughter’s birthday.  Rinetti ended the conversation telling [R] he would call him the next day, and that phone call hasn’t taken place.  Your Declarant believes Rinetti contacted [R] due to his position in the LVMPD Gang Unit.  [R].

July 22nd, 2019       

On July 22nd, 2019, detectives from the LVMPD Criminal Intelligence Section were conducting surveillance in the area of Tomsik Street and Charleston Boulevard in attempts to locate Jane and any vehicles she may be driving.  During the surveillance, Detectives observed Rinetti arrive in the area driving his unmarked LVMPD vehicle south on Tomsik.  He eventually parked directly behind two other detectives, sitting in their undercover vehicle and approached their vehicle.  He did not make contact with the detectives though, he just walked around their vehicle before entering his.

In attempts to have Rinetti leave the area, Detective Chaney P#9299 contacted Rinetti on his personal cell phone.  Detective Chaney gave Rinetti a reason why we were in the area at which point Rinetti responded he was in the area because he had an active pen register in the area for suspects wanted for pointing a gun at another individual.  Your Declarant could not locate any Pen Registers at that time for Rinetti or any active Pen Registers for other officers on his squad that matched the description given.  It should be noted that a few days after this conversation, Rinetti did have a Pen Register granted but it does not appear those subjects lived in the area.

Your Declarant believes Rinetti was no working any cases in the area.  Jane’s phone location showed her in the area of this location.  Your Declarant believes Rinetti was in the area to visit Jane when he noticed other law enforcement vehicles.  At that point, he made contact with Detectives who he thought were in the area, in order to give an explanation as to why he was there.

GLOBAL POSITIONING SERVICE “GPS” TRACKING

The use of Global Positioning System (GPS) mobile tracking devices has been utilized in this investigation.  Through the analysis of the GPS data, your Declarant believes Rinetti utilizes vehicles provided to him through LVMPD for personal and work-related use.  GPS devices have been utilized on Rinetti’s LVMPD issued vehicles since August 1st, 2019 and are still currently being used.

An analysis of the location history from the GPS showed Rinetti frequented an address associated [R] Las Vegas, Nevada, on a regular basis.  Below is a chart detailing when Rinetti arrived at Jane’s residence.  The times designated with an asterisk are dates when Rinetti had a ride-along with him during his normal working hours and went to Jane’s address after he dropped the ride along off.  It should be noted the GPS battery died on August 18th, 2019 and the tracker was not replaced until approximately 1922 hours on August 20th, 2019.

Through the analysis, it appears Rinetti usually goes to Jane’s residence for a prolonged period of time while he is off duty or right when he gets off of work.  Often times Rinetti went to Jane’s residence and when he leaves, he goes directly to his residence.  It does not appear Rinetti contacts Jane prior to going to her residence.

Below is a chart that details the dates and times Rinetti went to the known address of Jane.  In the sections marked “on duty” shows Rinetti was actually working and on duty per CAD.  If Rinetti was on duty, the associated LVMPD event number he was assigned to is listed.  Your Declarant also had video surveillance in the area and there is a section documenting if your Declarant was able to locate Rinetti’s vehicle through the surveillance.

 

Shortly after August 30, through Jane’s phone location data, it does not appear she has stayed at [R] for any period of time.  Through her phone location data, it appears Jane is currently staying at various unknown residence overnight.

CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE OPERATION’S

This entire section is completely redacted in the Declaration of Arrest Report.

MISSING NARCOTICS

During the operation at [R], Jane stated she received methamphetamine from Rinetti that he took off of a suspect.  With that information, your Declarant began researching events Rinetti was part of and spoke with law enforcement sources who would have knowledge of such events.  Your Declarant learned of two events in question, one prior to Rinetti meeting Jane and one after meeting Jane.  From interviews and research of items Rinetti has impounded through LVMPD, it does not appear Rinetti impounded narcotics often.

On [R] under LVMPD Event number [R], Rinetti was assigned to an event where members of the US Marshall Fugitive Investigation Strike Team (FIST) were looking for a wanted subject related to a probation violation at [R].

During the event, detectives observed the subject [R] make a hand to hand transaction with selling narcotics.  Detectives eventually took [R] into custody and invoked his search clause, at his residence, for the probation violation.  According to law enforcement officers familiar with that event and internal case notes for this specific arrest, a wooden box was recovered that had narcotic paraphernalia, prescription medication, and a small amount of narcotics, believed to be methamphetamine.  Officers familiar with the case believe the narcotics were methamphetamine due to [R] selling methamphetamine and when they invoked the search clause, [R’s] girlfriend was inside the residence using methamphetamine.

Per the internal case notes for the arrest, it stated Rinetti was going to impound the prescription medication, paraphernalia, and narcotics for disposal.  A record check of LVMPD databases, which would show any items impounded under that event number or by Rinetti did not show any results.  It is unknown what Rinetti did with the narcotics from this event.

[R] Rinetti was assigned to an event where members of the US Marshal FIST were looking for a subject on probation identified as [R].  Detectives located [R] at [R] in an apartment belonging to [R].  Detectives surrounded the apartment and both [R] and [R] exited and were taken into custody.

Detectives conducted a search of the apartment and located a safe in a back bedroom.  Inside the safe was a large amount of methamphetamine, a digital scale, baggies, and glass smoking pipes, which is consistent with narcotic sales.  According to law enforcement officer’s familiar with this event Rinetti was inside the apartment with two other officers, both from Parole and Probation.  Once the methamphetamine was located, it was left in the back bedroom unattended while the two probation officers conducted interviews and continued searching the apartment.  According to the property impound report, Officer Chandler with P@P impounded 65 net grams [about 2.2 ounces] of methamphetamine from the residence.

On August 22nd, 2019, Detectives with LVMPD Gang Unit conducted an interview with [R] while she was at CCDC.  During the interview, she told them a detective at her residence provided information about the search and possibly stole narcotics from the safe.

On August 26th, your Declarant and Detective Snodgrass P#13701 went to CCDC and spoke with [R].  [R] stated her apartment was searched in January 0f 2019.  During the search, officers located methamphetamine she stated belonged to [R].  [R] was not arrested during this event but she was served with a Notice to Seek Indictment form.  In the following days, [R] received a call from one of her close friends, [R], reference the event.  [R] was positively identified as [R].  [R] told details of the event that according to her, would only be known if you were at the residence. [R] believed [R] was going to cooperate with detectives from the Gang Unit.  [R] also told her a female, [R] knew as Jane was dating one of the detectives that was present and conducted the search.  [R] believed the detective was involved in mixed martial arts (MMA).  [R] further explained [R] told him the detective gave Jane methamphetamine from the house.  [R] reiterated the methamphetamine was not hers but stated there should have been 2.5 ounces of methamphetamine at the residence.

Your Declarant reviewed the impound report from P@P and confirmed Officer Chandler impounded 65 net grams of methamphetamine.  Based on the information provided through an interview with an officer familiar with the case, Rinetti could have been in the room by himself, which would have given him an opportunity to steal methamphetamine and provide those narcotics to Jane which [R] stated Rinetti did to the confidential source.

On September 3rd, 2019 your Declarant and Detective Snodgrass spoke with [R] again while she was still at CCDC.  During the conversation, [R] admitted the methamphetamine belonged to her and it was “fronted” to her by a subject she knows as [R] the day prior to P@P conducting their search.  [R] received a quarter pound of methamphetamine, which is 112 grams.  [R] stated she had a little extra methamphetamine in her safe so there would have been more than the 112 grams at her residence when it was searched.  [R] stated she did not sell any of the methamphetamines after it was “fronted” to her and she went to the apartment and placed it in her safe.  The only other person that could have taken any of the narcotics prior to the officer’s arrival would have been [R].  [R] who was present at the apartment on the day of the search and was taken into custody.  When [R] arrived at CCDC, officers located 2.5 grams of methamphetamine in her possession.  It should be noted [R] had not seen her discovery when the interview took place and she would not know the weight of the narcotics impounded by Detectives.

Your declarant conducted research of the event and through the interview with [R], knows that [R] lived at [R] during this time.  A record search reference the search showed Rinetti was assigned to the LVMPD event [R] at that address from 0854 hours until 1440 hours on [R].

A review of the historical phone location information from Rinetti’s work phone showed him at Jane’s address from approximately 1129 hours until 1520 hours.  When Rinetti left Jane’s apartment, he was on the phone with Jane for approximately 27 minutes.  It appears Rinetti left the residence between 1520 and 1547 hours and he drove in the direction of the [R], while still talking to Jane.  Your Declarant believes Rinetti arrived at the [R] at approximately 1625 hours.  Your Declarant knows Rinetti works on a part-time basis for the Nevada Athletic Commission.  Per the Nevada Athletic Commission website, it appears there was a boxing event that occurred at the [R] during the time period Rinetti was there.  Based on this information, your Declarant was there for a Nevada Athletic Commission event.

An analysis was completed during that same time period for the phone your Declarant believes Jane was using as stated above.  A historical location analysis showed Jane was in the area of East Sunset Road and Sandhill Road, Las Vegas, Nevada.  This area is in the direct vicinity of where [R] (aka R) lives, [R], Las Vegas, Nevada.  Through the analysis, Jane left that area and drove directly to the area of the [R], while on the phone with Rinetti.  It appears Jane arrived in the area of [R] at approximately 1600 hours.  From the analysis, it appears Rinetti and Jane were utilizing the same phone towers, which indicates they were in the same area and likely together from 1644 hours until approximately 1720 hours.  Jane’s phone location data shows she left the area and went directly back to the area of East Sunset Road and Sandhill Road.

Your Declarant believes [R] lived at [R] during this time due to an arrest that occurred in [R] by Detective Poulson.  Under LVMPD event [R], Poulson arrested [R] for Possession of a Controlled Substance – Methamphetamine after a Search Warrant was served on this residence.  According to Poulson’s Declaration of Arrest, he observed [R] at [R] on multiple occasions since he started his investigation in January of 2019.  During the service of the Search Warrant, investigators located 4.4. gross grams of ODV positive Methamphetamine in a room belonging to [R].

Your Declarant spoke with members of the LVMPD Gang Unit and learned of a separate investigation under LVMPD event number [R].  From that investigation, investigators were able to verify that [R] was in contact with a subject identified as [R].  [R] is a five-time registered felon for narcotics and stolen vehicle-related offenses.  [R] was arrested on [R] shortly after this incident occurred, for Trafficking a Controlled Substance – Methamphetamine and has been in custody since.

On September 30th, 2019, your Declarant and Detective Snodgrass spoke with [R] while at CCDC – North Valley Complex.  [R] stated he did provide [R] with methamphetamine a few times in January 2019 that he remembered, and she would also provide him with methamphetamine on occasions.  Your Declarant asked [R] how much methamphetamine he would typically provide [R] and he stated four ounces, which is what [R] stated.  He also remembered calling him shortly after her apartment was searched and explaining the incident to him, which he thought was odd because she was not arrested.  [R] stated he could not remember if [R] told him she had either four or eight ounces of methamphetamine in the safe when the police searched her apartment.

Based on these facts, your Declarant believes there was at least 112 grams of methamphetamine in the apartment when it was searched by Rinetti and other law enforcement officers.  Your Declarant knows only 65 grams of ODV positive methamphetamine was impounded by Officer Chandler with P@P.  Based on the information learned from this investigation, your Declarant believes Rinetti took at least 47 grams [1.65 ounces] of methamphetamine and provided those narcotics to Jane.

In order to further corroborate this information, a controlled interview with Jane took place at the Regional Justice Center (RJC) located at 200 E. Lewis Avenue on October 10th, 2019.  Your Declarant and Detective Stanton conducted the controlled interview with Jane in attempts to stimulate conversation related to the subject offenses between Rinetti and Jane.  During the controlled interview, your Declarant specifically asked Jane about narcotics that were given to her by a police officer, who obtained then from [R’s] residence from a search.

The interview concluded at approximately 0820 hours and Jane immediately left the RJC.  Physical surveillance was conducted on Jane and she was observed leaving the RJC and proceeding directly to a restaurant located at 321 South Casino Center, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Through the surveillance, Jane was observed on a telephone approximately four times.  Your Declarant learned during the times Jane was observed on the cellular telephone, [R] attempted to contact Rinetti on his work phone three times and there was another attempted contact with Jane’s mother [R].  These contacts were verified through the Pen Registers that are active on those respective numbers.

Shortly after the phone conversations, Jane was utilizing the same cellular phone and was picked up from the RJC in a Chevrolet Equinox that had stickers for rideshare companies, Uber and Lyft, in the windshield.  After Jane was dropped off the Equinox picked up another passenger from the complex which Jane was dropped off in.

On October 10th, 2019 at 1300 hours, there was an [R] conversation between Rinetti and Jane while utilizing Rinetti’s work phone and the new number associated for Jane.  During this communication, Jane told Rinetti about the controlled interview which took place at the RJC earlier in the morning.  [There was no mention that a court-ordered wiretap was granted.] They did not get into specifics reference the interviewDuring the conversation, Rinetti asked Jane if she still utilized the “S thing”, which your Declarant believes Rinetti was talking about a web-based phone application “Signal” where you can send encrypted text messages. [R].  Based on an open-source search Jane and Rinetti have accounts with “Signal”.

Jane did not acknowledge Rinetti when he kept speaking about the “S” applications.  Later in the conversation, through technical difficulties with Rinetti’s phone, [R].  Rinetti began talking to Jane about how she was accessing her “book” and nor responding to the message he sent her.  He further stated he tried to sign into Jane’s messenger account, however she changed her password.  Rinetti can be overheard stating “Capital R or no” then “R.E.” which your Declarant believes Jane was giving Rinetti information regarding her Facebook Messenger account.  Your Declarant believes they are speaking about Facebook Messenger due to Rinetti calling it the “book” and stating messenger multiple times.  Also, your Declarant knows Jane has an active Facebook Inc. account with the name [R] which is the beginning letters of which Rinetti began to spell out loud.  From this investigation, your Declarant knows the profile picture matches that of Jane and the birthday provided through the account, matches the birthday of Jane.

Later, on October 10th, 2019, Rinetti was at work as a detective with the LVMPD and was assigned to an active call with his ROP [Repeat Offender Program] squad.  During the surveillance, through police radio communication, Rinetti left his surveillance location and told his squad he was traveling to LVMPD Headquarters located at 400 S. Martin L. King Boulevard.  Through the mobile tracking device and through video surveillance, Rinetti arrived at Jane’s residence at [R].  Rinetti was inside the residence for approximately ten minutes before leaving and rejoining his squad on surveillance.  Later it was learned through conversations Rinetti had with Jane, he told Jane’s mother to change her phone number and he shouldn’t be at the residence.

On October 12th, 2019 through information gained on the mobile tracking device of Rinetti’s vehicle, Detective Stanton was able to see Rinetti went to Jane’s residence.  Through video surveillance, Rinetti’s work vehicle is seen arriving and parking in front of Jane’s residence, [R] and Jane entered the passenger seat of the vehicle. [R], when the door opened, and conversation started between Rinetti and Jane.

[R].  When Jane entered the vehicle, they began to speak about the detective who conducted the interview with Jane. Sounds like they had electronic surveillance up to intercept the conversations].  He further stated he was already “in enough trouble and should have kept his mouth shut.”  After he explains this, he tells [R].  Jane told Rinetti she wanted Viagra to sell to make money from it and Rinetti told her that he could get it for her.  Towards the end of the conversation, Rinetti asked Jane for a kiss as she was getting out of the car.  It appeared Jane told him no, at which point Rinetti stated “That was my mouth, my pussy, my ass, my tits.”  He further stated “when I feel it again, if it feels any different, I swear to God! With my bad finger.”  At that point Jane exited the vehicle and Rinetti left the area.

Through the investigation, your Declarant learned Rinetti and Jane were utilizing Jane’s Facebook Messenger account to communicate with each other.  On October 16th, 2019, your Declarant learned Jane was meeting with another subject near the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino located at 4455 Paradise Road, Las Vegas, Nevada, to purchase narcotics.  Rinetti saw the messages and began to travel to the Hard Rock.  When he arrived, he sent Jane the following messages:

  • “I’m downstairs now, you better get your ass down here immediately.”
  • “Yes, at the HR. Now!”
  • “Don’t come downstairs now and don’t ever call me again. You choose hanging in a dirty filthy tricks room and not give me 5 mins your on your own.  I’m disappointed and disgusted”
  • “Suit yourself, I know your reading these. I’m out…have fun”

On October 16th, 2019, your Declarant and Detective Stanton conducted another interview with Jane while she was at the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino.  Below is a synopsis of the interview, for a complete record of the interview, please refer to the audio recording and transcription.

During the interview Jane initially was defending Rinetti and stated she had a crush on him, and the relationship was strictly professional.  Throughout the course of the interview. Jane admitted she has been having sexual intercourse with Rinetti since November 2018.

Jane stated Rinetti was extremely jealous and did not like when she worked her prior profession as an exotic dancer because he felt she was sleeping with other guys.  Jane stated she did not have any money to pay for rent so Rinetti began paying her in stolen property he took off of suspects.  Later, in another interview that took place on October 18th, 2019, Jane stated she lied about the stolen property in attempts to distract investigators from the fact Rinetti provided her with methamphetamine.

When specifically asked about being provided narcotics from [R’s] residence, Jane denied it occurred.  Eventually she stated he provided her with two large shards of methamphetamine that belong to [R] but added she would lie about anything to stay out of jail.  At that point, your Declarant told Jane that I was only interested in the truth of what occurred and that your Declarant did not want her to lie to investigators.

Later in the interview, Jane stated Rinetti provided her with a balloon of heroin and methamphetamine from [R’s] residence.  She did not recall specifics to a location they met, but stated the methamphetamine was large shard.

Jane also stated Rinetti conducted a criminal history inquiry on Jane’s mother, [R], because Jane asked him to find her criminal history.  Jane stated she was in the car with Rinetti when he did the records check.  Jane looked at the record to obtain [her mother’s] Social Security Number.  She stated she used the social security information to steal [her mother’s] information to create a credit card.

An offline search was conducted, and it was determined Rinetti conducted a records search on [R] September 6th, 2018.  At this time, it is unknown when Jane applied for the credit card and used this information to steal her mother’s identity.

Another interview with Jane took place on October 18th, 2019 with Jane.  This time, your Declarant was with Detective Snodgrass.  During this interview Jane gave a more detailed account of when the narcotics were stolen from [R].     

Jane stated she has a feud with [R] and the two do not get along with each other, which Rinetti knows.  Rinetti was at the residence attempting to locate another fugitive with a Probation Officer, which [R] stated had a long black beard, which your declarant knows as [R].  Jane stated Rinetti told her there was a large amount of methamphetamine in the residence, so he took one large shard for her.  Jane did not remember the exact location he gave it to her but stated he pulled it out of his pocket, and it was located in a blue latex glove.  Jane believed the methamphetamine to weigh between a half ounce and one ounce.  She stated she used a little bit of the methamphetamine and sold the rest so she could pay for her rent.

Jane further clarified the statements above and stated she lived with her mother [R] Las Vegas, Nevada.  Rinetti felt comfortable going to this location and he did not want her to move out of the residence.  Due to this reason, Rinetti provided her with the narcotics to sell, in order to pay rent and stay at this location.

SEARCH WARRANT AT [R’S] STORAGE UNIT

Based on the interview with Jane, on October 16th, 2019, your Declarant believed     some of the stolen property Jane was talking about was in a storage unit located at 8100 W. Charleston.  Your Declarant was granted permission to search this storage unit by the Honorable Judge Tierra Jones.  During the search, detectives located five cardboard boxes that stated “LVMPD” on the side, two cell phones, and a Christmas card.

Your Declarant learned Rinetti wrote a card to Jane most likely around Christmas time due to it being a Christmas Card.  The card itself spoke about love and doing little things show love.  Inside the card, Rinetti wrote a personal note that stated; Jane know how it happened, don’t really care, all I know is that it’s been amazing getting to know you, and fall in love with you.  Your such a special woman, you should be celebrated all year love!  Merry Christmas Baby – (Heart symbol) LR

INTERVIEW WITH RINETTI   

On October 18th, 2019, Rinetti was contacted at the Clark County Detention Center and placed under arrest.  Rinetti was advised of his Miranda Rights by your Declarant via pre-printed Miranda card, to which Rinetti stated, “Yes” he understood his rights and was interviewed by Det, Stanton and your Declarant.  Rinetti was informed the focus of the investigation was related to his relationship with Jane and the missing methamphetamine from [R’s] residence.  Rinetti stated he was present at [R’s] residence during the search and recalled methamphetamine being present in multiple places inside the residence.  Rinetti stated he did not take any methamphetamine.  Rinetti stated Jane was providing information to him but was signed up as an informant through another officer with LVMPD.  A check of LVMPD records revealed Jane had not been signed up as an informant.  Rinetti said he did not ever recall receiving a phone call from any officers informing him Jane had been stopped or was in police custody.

Rinetti confirmed he did contact the Clark County District Attorney’s Office to provide them details of Jane’s assistance in order to assist her on her pending criminal charges.

Rinetti stated he has met Jane’s mother [R] on a few occasions but was unaware if she had a criminal record and said he never queried her criminal history record.  An offline search through LVMPD records revealed [Jane’ mother’s] criminal history was queried through a computer on September 6th, 2018 at 1400 hours, which was logged into by Rinetti.

Rinetti denied having a personal relationship with Jane after being asked several times, but ultimately acknowledged the relationship.

CONCLUSION       

Your Declarant believes the facts alleged herein establish Rinetti has committed the crimes of Sell, Transport, Give Away a Controlled Substance – Methamphetamine, Destruction of Evidence, and Misconduct of a Public Officer.  Rinetti was at the apartment of [R] on January 17th, 2019 and became in possession of methamphetamine.  Based on the facts above, your Declarant believes Rinetti and Jane met at the [R] and Rinetti gave Jane methamphetamine to sell.  Destruction of Evidence — Rinetti took methamphetamine from [R’s] residence, which was evidence of Trafficking a Controlled Substance under LVMPD event number [R].   Misconduct of a Public Officer – Rinetti and Jane were in a personal relationship.  Rinetti provided Jane with methamphetamine, criminal history information, and prevented Jane from going to jail on numerous occasions for his personal gain of maintaining a relationship with her.

Analysis       

My analysis is based solely on what is contained in the Declaration Of Arrest Report.  The DOA Report describes the probable cause necessary for the arrest.

The detectives from the Criminal Intelligence section did a thorough investigation, I commend them for a job well done.

I do have some issues though with what I read, strictly my own opinions.

First, there was no seizure of narcotics from either Jane or Rinetti in this case.

Jane says Rinetti gave her Heroin and methamphetamine.  Jane is a convicted felon, prostitute, meth user and drug dealer.  Jane’s credibility will be attacked by defense counsel should this case reach the courtroom.

During her interview with detectives Jane changed her story several times:

  • “she did not have any money to pay for rent so Rinetti began paying her in stolen property he took off of suspects.”
  • “Later, in another interview that took place on October 18th, 2019, Jane stated she lied about the stolen property in attempts to distract investigators from the fact Rinetti provided her with methamphetamine.”  
  • “When specifically asked about being provided narcotics from [R’s] residence, Jane denied it occurred.”
  • “Eventually she stated he provided her with two large shards of methamphetamine that belong to [R] but added she would lie about anything to stay out of jail.”
  • “Later in the interview, Jane stated Rinetti provided her with a balloon of heroin and methamphetamine from [R’s] residence.”

As far as I’m concerned her statements are a problem.  I’m not defending Rinetti, I believe he is in my definition of a corrupt cop, just that, but Jane’s statements are problematic as they stand.

Other statements obtained by detectives during the investigation are from convicted felons; drug dealers and meth users.  Their credibility is also questionable to say the least.

The missing narcotics

Search #1.  “Per the internal case notes for the arrest, it stated Rinetti was going to impound the prescription medication, paraphernalia, and narcotics for disposal.  A record check of LVMPD databases, which would show any items impounded under that event number or by Rinetti did not show any results.  It is unknown what Rinetti did with the narcotics from this event.”

That should have been discovered immediately had proper evidence collection procedures been followed.  Did anybody ask questions when why it wasn’t logged in as evidence?  Apparently not.

Search #2.  “According to law enforcement officer’s familiar with this event Rinetti was inside the apartment with two other officers, both from Parole and Probation.  Once the methamphetamine was located, it was left in the back bedroom unattended while the two probation officers conducted interviews and continued searching the apartment.  According to the property impound report, Officer Chandler with P@P impounded 65 net grams [about 2.2 ounces] of methamphetamine from the residence.”

Based on these facts, your Declarant believes there was at least 112 grams of methamphetamine in the apartment when it was searched by Rinetti and other law enforcement officers.  Your Declarant knows only 65 grams of ODV positive methamphetamine was impounded by Officer Chandler with P@P.  Based on the information learned from this investigation, your Declarant believes Rinetti took at least 47 grams [1.65 ounces] of methamphetamine and provided those narcotics to Jane.

Again, poor evidence collection techniques to say the least; was it photographed, sealed and documented at the scene?   Other officers on scene that could have taken the meth.  Evidence left unattended in the back bedroom?  Evidence not collected by Rinetti but by another officer.  All that is going to be a problem in this case.

“Rinetti receives a phone call from Detective Poulson P#9023, who is a detective with LVMPD, assigned to Narcotics, at approximately 1830 and they speak for over ten minutes.  Through the investigation, it was determined that Poulson signed Jane up as a CI with the FBI and she was working for them.  A record check was conducted with the FBI on August 22nd, 2019 and your Declarant confirmed she has never been signed up as a CI for them.”

What’s up with that contradictory statement?

Another question I have concerns about is the interception of the conversations between Rinetti and Jane while he was using his work cellphone.  Would the police have needed a court-authorized wiretap to intercept those conversations or was it not necessary because it was a department-issued cellphone?  They make no mention of obtaining a wiretap order, only the pen registers and trap and trace.

I believe they are going to have problems with the drug charge.

The charge of allowing Jane to view her mother’s criminal history appears solid as is Rinetti continually using his authority to keep Jane from getting charged with crimes.

No doubt Rinetti is a liar on several accounts.

Rinetti admitted to having a relationship with Jane, a convicted criminal, and a person of ill-repute.

The Team: Det. Al Beas, Det, Chris Baughman, Det, Trey Gethoefer (Facebook 2010)

But I have to ask this question.  Similar allegations were raised against former Vice Detective Albert Beas (among others) who was transferred out of Vice and assigned back to patrol.

Isn’t associating with, having a sexual relationship with, and giving money to a prostitute grounds for dismissal from the LVMPD?

According to sources who spoke to the Baltimore Post-Examiner Beas admitted to those charges during an Internal Affairs investigation but has retained his job.  He is currently working patrol and enforcing the law.

At the least, wouldn’t his credibility be challenged in a court of law.

What say you, Sheriff Joe Lombardo?

(Authors note:  As I stated at the beginning of this article, I obtained the personal and work cellphone numbers belonging to Rinetti last week.  I left a message with Rinetti requesting an interview with him on October 31.  A short time later Rinetti’s attorney Colleen Savage with the law firm of Sgro and Roger contacted me. I asked if Rinetti would be willing to be interviewed.  I was told they would get back with me.  One of the partners in that law firm is David Roger who is the former Clark County District Attorney and serves as General Counsel for the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, the union that represents rank and file LVMPD officers.  I asked Ms. Savage if the LVPPA was paying for Rinetti’s defense, but she declined comment.)    





About the author

Doug Poppa

Doug authored over 135 articles on the October 1, 2017 Las Vegas Massacre, more than any other single journalist in the country. He investigates stories on corruption, law enforcement and crime. Doug is a US Army Military Police Veteran, former police officer, deputy sheriff and criminal investigator. Doug spent 20 years in the hotel/casino industry as an investigator and then as Director of Security and Surveillance. He also spent a short time with the US Dept. of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration. In 1986 Doug was awarded Criminal Investigator of the Year by the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office in Virginia for his undercover work in narcotics enforcement. In 1992 and 1993 Doug testified in court that a sheriff’s office official and the county prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence during the 1988 trial of a man accused of the attempted murder of his wife. Doug’s testimony led to a judge’s decision to order the release of the man from prison in 1992 and awarded him a new trial, in which he was later acquitted. As a result of Doug breaking the police “blue wall of silence,” he was fired by the county sheriff. His story was featured on Inside Edition, Current Affair and CBS News’ “Street Stories with Ed Bradley”. In 1992 after losing his job, at the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Doug infiltrated a group of men who were plotting the kidnapping of a Dupont fortune heir and his wife. Doug has been a guest on national television and radio programs speaking on the stories he now writes as an investigative journalist. Contact the author.
COMMENT POLICY

Leave a Comment

Comment Policy

HOME / ABOUT / CONTACT / JOIN THE TEAM / TERMS OF SERVICE / PRIVACY POLICY / COMMENT POLICY