Deschutes County Sheriff Kent van der Kamp has had his police certifications revoked for life by the state’s police agency in Salem. But those certs have remained valid since the embattled sheriff filed an appeal on June 27.
That contested case process may stretch a full year, said Sam Tenney, the communications coordinator at the Oregon Department of Public Safety and Standards, whose board ratified the lifetime ban this morning. That’s quite a bit longer than van der Kamp’s remaining tenure as sheriff; his resignation date is July 31.
Deschutes County commissioners will vote on July 29 for the interim sheriff, who will replace van der Kamp and carry the role through the 2026 election cycle. There are five candidates whose letters of interest can be read on the Deschutes County website.
The DPSST’s revocation of van der Kamp’s certifications would have been effective immediately, barring van der Kamp from working as a law enforcement officer in Oregon ever again.
But van der Kamp, through his attorneys, staved off that outcome with the appeal.
Now, it’s up to an administrative law judge to decide whether uphold the DPSST’s revocation.
The way this plays out is a primer in the finer workings of due process within policing. After the initial May 22 hearing, the DPSST issued van der Kamp a notice of intent to revoke his certifications on June 11. Acting within a 20-day window, van der Kamp’s attorney requested a contested case hearing on June 27, Tenney said. That means the matter will be referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, which will assign an administrative law judge to hear the case.
“There’s a pretty lengthy process involved before we get to a final outcome,” Tenney said.
Next steps thereafter include a pre-trial conference where deadlines and a trial date will be set. Then there’s a period of discovery and filing documentation with the judge. When van der Kamp and DPSST eventually arrive at a hearing, it could take weeks or months for the judge to issue a proposed order, or decision in the matter. If that order is in DPSST’s favor, Tenney explained, van der Kamp would have the opportunity to file exceptions, which would each need to be considered before the judge issues a final order in which van der Kamp’s certifications would be revoked.
But even after all that, van der Kamp would have another 60 days to file a petition with the Oregon Court of Appeals.
“There’s a lot of due process involved,” Tenney said. “It’s not that you’re revoked and that’s it.”
At the July 24 DPSST meeting, Sheriff van der Kamp was one of seven law enforcement and corrections officers who were stripped of their certifications in a consent agenda that was ratified by a single vote per board member.
This revocation stems from a May 22 hearing, the Source reported, at which a DPSST police policy committee voted to adopt a staff report that describes van der Kamp’s moral fitness violations. Those pertain to numerous instances of dishonesty and misconduct, which include lying about his educational background while testifying under oath and his omittance of having been terminated for cause — including dishonesty and use of excessive force — by the La Mesa Police Department while a reserve deputy in the 1990s.
These revelations, made by the Deschutes County District Attorney’s Office, prompted DA Steve Gunnels to place van der Kamp on the Brady List in April. The list compiles allegedly dishonest police officers that are barred from giving testimony in Deschutes County Circuit Court cases, the Source reported.
By press time, the Sheriff’s Office did not respond to a request for comment, nor did the attorney who represented van der Kamp at the initial May 22 DPSST hearing.
This article appears in Source Weekly July 24, 2025.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
What a loser.
Those who watched the initial meeting will recall van der Kamp’s attorney introduced his client’s intent to challenge – but the challenge is not tied to DA Gunnels’ investigation results – rather to former sheriff Shane Nelson’s 2024 allegations that vk did not list his La Mesa PD employment, was on a long past La Mesa PD / DA Brady list, and was terminated by La Mesa- independent research showed last year vk was never placed on a CALI Brady list…was never officially terminated by La Mesa (reconfirmed by CALI POST)…and according to vk’s attorney they have evidence showing he did in fact list La Mesa on his DCSO application and Nelson hid this.
If vk is successful in making the above part of the admin court record – in theory he can then file suit against DCSO/County for defamation / libel etc.
And possibly see DPSST’s revocation tossed should the admin court find any of Nelson’s questionable actions influenced the Gunnels’ investigation.
We have a legal system – not a justice system.
As Gunnels’ investigation proved – and accurately – vk lied x3 about where he got his degrees – not his education – and key to this was while under oath.
The point is he is fighting the contrived claims made by Nelson who was seeking to help his chosen candidate’s flailing campaign – and if the Administrative judge concurs Nelson lied at the onset – then Gunnels’ investigation is in jeopardy (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine).
And as the ADA who uncovered the voter ballot contradictions was also the ADA assigned to DCSO (Forensics Unit) – and the SGT there was an announced Bailey supporter – the waters become even murkier than they already were.
The vexing part of all this is that Nelson, based on his IA’s findings in November 2024, could have terminated van der kamp regardless of whether he won the election or not. van der Kamp chose not to attend, or have his attorney attend, a specific hearing which precludes such a decision. Nelson, in writing, stated that because vk did not participate in that hearing he was closing the IA with the recommendation of no disciplinary action recommended.
“Public employees, including police officers, who have a property interest in their jobs (meaning they are not at-will employees) are generally entitled to a pre-disciplinary hearing, often referred to as a Loudermill hearing, before disciplinary action leading to a loss of pay or position can be imposed.
“This right to a pre-disciplinary hearing stems from the constitutional right to due process, ensuring fairness and accountability in employment decisions. The Supreme Court case Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill established this right, stating that most public employees are entitled to a hearing before being discharged.
“The pre-disciplinary hearing aims to provide an employee with an opportunity to present their side of the story and respond to charges before a final decision on discipline is made.” – AI
In addition, if the officer does not attend the hearing, nor does his union rep or attorney, and in this case then Sheriff Nelson needed only present the IA’s findings and then render a decision which includes termination. Nelson failed to either know this (pretty hard as he had an in-house attorney at the time who was sheep-dogging every aspect of the IA), or for his own reasons walked away from what had been a year long political effort to squash his preferred candidate’s opponent.