Attorney for ex-Tulsa officer wants rehearing

TULSA, Okla. (AP) - An attorney for a former Tulsa police officer serving a 10-year prison sentence for stealing money during a drug bust has indicated in a court filing that he’ll petition an appeals court for a rehearing.

William Lunn, the defense attorney for convicted ex-Cpl. Harold Wells, wrote in a document filed Sunday that he wants the full 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the appeal instead of a three-judge panel, which upheld Wells’ initial conviction in Tulsa federal court earlier this month.

Lunn, who did not return a phone message seeking comment Monday, wrote in the document that he was prepared to take his client’s case to the U.S. Supreme Court if the Denver-based 10th Circuit refused to grant him a rehearing.

Wells was sentenced in 2011 after a two-year federal probe resulted in 11 officers being charged or named as unindicted co-conspirators. The scandal severely tarnished the reputation of the city’s police department.

Wells, a 35-year police veteran, is serving his term in a Minnesota prison.

Wells was secretly videotaped pocketing money during what he and another officer believed was a drug bust of a Texas man in 2009. Of $13,000 seized, officers turned in $8,000 and divided the other $5,000 among themselves. Later, they became suspicious and tried to return the money, prosecutors said.

Lunn maintained that the videotape that showed Wells stealing the money was made illegally and violated his client’s right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution. Lunn also claimed in court documents that prosecutors did not have a warrant to videotape the FBI sting and they showed only snippets of the tape during the federal trial in Tulsa, picking out those that were more favorable to their case.

Federal prosecutor Patrick Harris did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment Monday.

The federal investigation of the department resulted in more than 40 people having convictions overturned or winning release from prison. Several lawsuits have since been filed against the city by people claiming they were wrongfully put away based on faulty evidence or testimony produced by the convicted officers.