“I’m Going to Bury You”: Carlton County Deputy Received Written Reprimand After Corroborated Off-Duty Threats
Internal Sheriff’s Office records describe repeated threatening statements, fear of law-enforcement retaliation, alcohol-impaired memory, and allegations of previous misconduct. The documented discipline was a written reprimand.
By Carlton County Watch
A Carlton County sheriff’s deputy, under command of Sheriff Kelly Lake, repeatedly told a member of the public that he was going to “bury” him during an off-duty confrontation at a Carlton bar, according to internal Sheriff’s Office records obtained through a Minnesota Government Data Practices Act request.
Multiple witnesses corroborated the deputy’s angry and intimidating conduct. The complainant told investigators that he feared not only an immediate physical confrontation, but also possible retaliation through the deputy’s law-enforcement authority.
The deputy, Michael “Mike” Soderstrom (now the Mayor of Carlton, MN), later acknowledged that his behavior was unacceptable, admitted that he had consumed too much alcohol, and said he had no reason to question the accounts provided by the witnesses.
The discipline documented in the records was a written reprimand.
A pull-tab win and an angry confrontation
The incident occurred late in the evening on July 26, 2018, at the Third Base Bar in Carlton.
According to the investigative records, a group of patrons entered the bar, purchased pull tabs and announced that they had won approximately $200. Soderstrom, who was off duty, had reportedly been playing from the same pull-tab box and had already spent a substantial amount of money.
The complainant told Chief Deputy Brian Belich that Soderstrom became angry and repeatedly said words to the effect of:
“I’m going to fucking bury you.”
According to the complainant, Soderstrom repeated the statement several times.
The complainant also reported that Soderstrom later approached him from approximately 10 feet away and ordered him to “sit down and shut the fuck up.” Similar remarks were reportedly directed toward another member of the group.
Fear of retaliation by a law-enforcement officer
The complainant’s concern extended beyond the possibility of a bar fight.
Because he knew Soderstrom was a Carlton County sheriff’s deputy, the complainant told investigators that he feared Soderstrom could use his official authority to retaliate against him.
The complainant reportedly worried that Soderstrom could stop him while driving, accuse him of driving while impaired or otherwise initiate a criminal charge against him. He explained that even the existence of such a charge could jeopardize his employment.
That distinction is central to understanding the seriousness of the incident.
A threat made by an ordinary bar patron is concerning. A threat made by a law-enforcement officer may carry an additional implication: that the officer has the power to detain, investigate, arrest or initiate criminal proceedings against the person being threatened.
The written reprimand itself acknowledged this concern. It stated that Soderstrom’s comments were interpreted as a threat of retaliation because the individuals knew he was a Carlton County deputy.
Multiple witnesses corroborated the conduct
The complaint was not supported by only one person’s account.
The investigative records describe several witnesses who independently recalled Soderstrom acting angrily and aggressively.
One witness remembered Soderstrom appearing angry, confronting the group and repeatedly telling people to “sit the fuck down.” She said the incident was especially upsetting because she knew Soderstrom was a deputy and felt intimidated by his behavior.
Another witness recalled Soderstrom saying that he would “bury” the complainant and told the investigator that she perceived the statement as a threat.
A bar employee who was working with the pull tabs described Soderstrom as loud, aggressive, obnoxious and apparently impaired by alcohol.
That employee did not interpret Soderstrom’s “bury” statement as a direct threat of physical violence. She instead appeared to understand it as an angry statement connected to the pull-tab dispute.
Nevertheless, she described his conduct as inappropriate—particularly for someone employed in law enforcement.
The difference between the witnesses’ interpretations is important.
Not every witness understood the exact nature of the threat in the same way. But the records show substantial agreement that Soderstrom was angry, aggressive, intoxicated or impaired, and behaving in a manner inconsistent with the standards expected of a law-enforcement officer.
Witness alleged previous threatening behavior
The bar employee also reportedly told the investigator that this was not the first time she had heard Soderstrom threaten people.
According to the investigative report, she alleged that Soderstrom became “really ugly” when drinking and gambling and had previously made threatening remarks toward other bar patrons.
The allegation raises a serious question: Did Carlton County investigate whether the July 2018 incident was an isolated event or part of a broader pattern?
The records currently available to Carlton County Watch do not document any separate investigation into that allegation. They also do not identify the other patrons involved in the alleged previous incidents or indicate whether investigators attempted to interview them.
The allegation should not be treated as a proven fact. It was a witness statement made during an administrative investigation.
But it was a potentially significant lead—one that the Sheriff’s Office had an obligation to evaluate carefully.
The records produced to date do not explain what, if anything, was done with it.
Soderstrom admitted unacceptable behavior
Soderstrom was interviewed by Chief Deputy Belich on August 6, 2018.
During that interview, Soderstrom acknowledged that he had consumed too much alcohol and that his judgment had been impaired.
He said he could not remember the precise statements attributed to him. But he did not meaningfully dispute the accounts of the complainant or the witnesses.
Soderstrom acknowledged that his behavior was unacceptable, said he had no business confronting the patrons and admitted that he had made a mistake. He described his actions as embarrassing and inconsistent with the standards expected of a peace officer.
He also acknowledged that law-enforcement officers are held to a higher standard even when they are off duty.
When informed of the specific statements attributed to him, Soderstrom said he had no reason to question the witnesses’ accounts.
In other words, Soderstrom’s defense was not that the witnesses were lying. His position was that he had consumed too much alcohol and could not remember the details of what he had said.
An apology at the complainant’s home
Soderstrom told the investigator that he later went to the complainant’s home and apologized to the complainant and his wife.
An apology is a relevant mitigating fact. It indicates that Soderstrom recognized the seriousness of his conduct and attempted to take responsibility for it.
But the personal visit also raises additional questions.
Was it appropriate for the subject of an active citizen complaint to go directly to the complainant’s home?
Did the Sheriff’s Office authorize or know about the visit before it occurred? Was the complainant comfortable with the contact?
Was any instruction given to Soderstrom concerning direct communication with the witnesses?
The currently available records do not answer those questions.
The discipline: a written reprimand
On August 14, 2018, Chief Deputy Belich issued Soderstrom a formal written reprimand.
The reprimand did not dismiss the allegations as unfounded.
Instead, the letter expressly stated that Soderstrom had made threatening statements toward the complainant and another individual. It noted that witnesses corroborated the complainant’s description of Soderstrom’s tone and behavior.
The letter also acknowledged that the statements were perceived as threats of retaliation because Soderstrom was known to be a Carlton County deputy.
The reprimand informed Soderstrom that his behavior was unacceptable, that he had violated the Sheriff’s Office’s expectations and that future performance issues could result in additional discipline, including termination.
The documented punishment was placement of the written reprimand in Soderstrom’s personnel file.
The records produced to Carlton County Watch do not document:
A suspension from duty;
A loss of pay;
A demotion;
A mandatory alcohol or substance-use evaluation;
A fitness-for-duty examination;
Required remedial or ethics training;
A prohibition against contacting the complainant;
A referral for possible criminal investigation;
An outside review by another law-enforcement agency; or
A finding addressing the allegation of previous similar conduct.
The absence of those items from the produced records does not conclusively establish that none occurred. It means that the disciplinary packet currently available to the public does not document them.
Was the punishment proportionate?
Soderstrom presented several mitigating considerations during his interview.
He reportedly characterized the incident as one bad night, said he was ashamed of his conduct, emphasized his prior years of service and stated that this was his first complaint involving off-duty conduct in approximately 27 years.
Those considerations may properly be evaluated in determining discipline.
But they must be weighed against the aggravating facts documented by the Sheriff’s Office:
Soderstrom repeatedly made threatening statements toward members of the public.
His conduct was corroborated by multiple witnesses.
Alcohol had impaired his judgment and memory.
His status as a deputy increased the complainant’s fear.
The complainant feared retaliatory use of police authority.
A witness alleged that Soderstrom had engaged in previous threatening behavior while drinking and gambling.
And Soderstrom ultimately said that he had no reason to challenge the witnesses’ accounts.
The central accountability question is therefore unavoidable:
How did Carlton County determine that a written reprimand was proportionate to corroborated threats and intimidation by a sheriff’s deputy?
The available records do not include a written disciplinary analysis, a comparison to similar cases, a progressive-discipline matrix or a detailed explanation of why stronger corrective action was rejected.
The importance of police conduct while off duty
Law-enforcement authority does not disappear when an officer’s shift ends.
Members of the public know that an off-duty deputy remains trained, licensed and closely connected to the criminal-justice system. They may reasonably believe that the officer retains the ability to initiate law-enforcement contact or influence how another officer responds to an allegation.
That reality is reflected in the complainant’s reported fear that Soderstrom could target him through a traffic stop or impaired-driving accusation.
Whether Soderstrom actually intended to use his authority in that manner is a separate question. The records do not establish that he later attempted to carry out such retaliation.
But the Sheriff’s Office itself recognized that Soderstrom’s position as a deputy contributed to the threatening and intimidating nature of the encounter.
That should have been a central factor in determining the appropriate discipline.
Records produced in difficult-to-read format
Carlton County produced the disciplinary records as low-resolution, image-based pages. Portions of the records are pixelated and difficult to read, and the document does not contain searchable text.
Carlton County Watch is preserving the original production and carefully distinguishing between direct quotations, paraphrased statements and allegations made by individual witnesses.
The poor quality of the production does not, by itself, establish that Carlton County intentionally degraded the records. However, members of the public should not be required to decipher blurry scans to understand how their government investigated and disciplined a law-enforcement officer.
Carlton County Watch will seek the original or highest-quality versions of the records, including any available audio recordings of the interviews.
Questions Carlton County should answer
Carlton County Watch is seeking additional information regarding the investigation and discipline, including:
Which Sheriff’s Office policies did Soderstrom violate?
Who made the final decision to issue only a written reprimand?
What disciplinary options were considered?
Why was suspension, loss of pay or mandatory corrective training not documented?
Was the allegation of previous threatening behavior investigated?
Did the Sheriff’s Office review Soderstrom’s complete complaint and disciplinary history?
Was the matter referred to the Carlton County Attorney, another law-enforcement agency or the Minnesota Peace Officer Standards and Training Board?
Did the Sheriff’s Office authorize or approve Soderstrom’s personal visit to the complainant’s home?
Were alcohol-related counseling, evaluation or treatment requirements imposed?
Did the incident affect Soderstrom’s later assignments, supervisory authority or employment status?
Public accountability requires more than a reprimand letter
This story is not based on rumor, anonymous social-media claims or political speculation.
It is based on Carlton County’s own records.
Those records describe repeated threats, multiple corroborating witnesses, alcohol-impaired judgment, fear of official retaliation and an admission that the conduct was unacceptable.
They also document the disciplinary outcome: a written reprimand.
Carlton County may possess additional information that provides further context for that decision. If so, it should release that information and explain its reasoning to the public.
Until then, the records leave Carlton County residents with a serious and unanswered question:
If corroborated threats and intimidation by a sheriff’s deputy resulted only in a written reprimand, what conduct would Carlton County consider serious enough to warrant meaningful discipline?
Document and response note
This article is based on an 11-page disciplinary and investigative record produced by Carlton County through a Minnesota Government Data Practices Act inspection request. The records concern conduct alleged to have occurred on July 26, 2018, and a written reprimand dated August 14, 2018.
Carlton County Watch will update this article as additional public records or substantive responses become available. Any response from Michael Soderstrom, the Carlton County Sheriff’s Office or Carlton County administration will be reviewed and fairly incorporated into the published record.