Romulus Police Chief Dickerson lawsuit.pdf - MLive.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2:13-cv-10771-JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 10 of 18 Pg ID 1057. Plaintiff replied that “The whole thing stinks. The only reason anything was donehere is just because of a FOIA request. I don’t want [the officer] to be in anytrouble, but this thing happened two months ago. Something should have beendone a long time ago.”58. Defendant Shelby replied that the officer involved in the incident wanted theentire incident to go away too and further advised Plaintiff that there was apossibility of a criminal investigation concerning the assault of the handcuffedprisoner.59. In addition, as the FOIA coordinator, Plaintiff had never before been asked orinstructed to turn video evidence over to the City of Romulus attorney and alsobelieved that turning over such evidence would break the chain of custody.60. Plaintiff was troubled by Defendant Dickerson’s order to destroy materialevidence of a possible criminal conduct and decided to report his suspicions of acover-up of possible criminal conduct to the Michigan Attorney General’s Office.61. On October 5, 2012, Plaintiff contacted the Michigan Attorney General’s Officeto report his suspicions of illegal activity (i.e., the assault of the handcuffedprisoner) and a possible cover up of a crime committed by an officer of the Cityof Romulus Police Department.62. On October 8, 2012, Plaintiff informed Defendants Dickerson and Shelby that hehad contacted the Michigan Attorney General’s Office to report his suspicions ofillegal activity and that he had made a copy of the surveillance video of theassault of the handcuffed officer which was also provided to the AttorneyGeneral’s Office.
2:13-cv-10771-JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 11 of 18 Pg ID 1163. On October 8, 2012, Defendant Chief Dickerson told Plaintiff that he wished hehad kept the issue in-house rather than going to the Attorney General’s Office.64. Defendant Captain Shelby informed Plaintiff that since Captain Monte had takenover the record bureau duties that Plaintiff would be expected to handle moreduties in the Detective Bureau, including case assignments, payroll andsupervisory duties.65. On October 9, 2012, Captain Shelby provided Plaintiff with a copy of the revisedFOIA response letter and asked Plaintiff if he wanted his name included as thesignatory of the letter to which Plaintiff responded that he did not.66. On December 5, 2012, Plaintiff spoke with Carol Mayerich of the City ofRomulus Human Resources Department and told her that Defendants ChiefDickerson and Captain Shelby had created a hostile work environment for him.67. On December 7, 2012, Ms. Mayerich met with Plaintiff and Defendant ChiefDickerson. Defendant Chief Dickerson told Ms. Mayerich that he was “leery” ofPlaintiff remaining in the Detective Bureau and the property room because of“trust issues”, presumably referring to Plaintiff’s refusal to destroy evidence asordered by Defendant Chief Dickerson.68. At this meeting, Defendant Chief Dickerson also lauded Plaintiff’s work in theDetective Bureau, how Plaintiff had been a “great employee”, that he could counton Plaintiff always getting the job done but that that had changed since the timeperiod when the City of Romulus Police Department had received the FOIArequest concerning the video tape of the assault by a police officer on a
Page 1 and 2: 2:13-cv-10771-JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed
Page 9: 2:13-cv-10771-JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed

Romulus Police Chief Dickerson lawsuit.pdf - MLive.com

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?