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 4 of 18 Pg ID 416. From July of 2011 to December of 2011, Plaintiff worked as a Sergeant inuniform on road patrol.17. In December of 2011, a new position was created by Defendant City of Romulusd/b/a the City of Romulus Police Department, which combined the duties of therecord bureau sergeant and the detective sergeant, who would work under theauthority of Defendant Captain Shelby.18. Based on his qualifications and exemplary performance, Plaintiff was selected forthis position which also included operation of the property/evidence room.19. In July of 2012, Plaintiff wrote a memo to the Defendants Shelby and Dickersoninforming them that he could not perform all of the duties assigned at a standardacceptable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff, therefore, asked that the position be reposted forother interested sergeants and, if no other sergeants applied or were interested inthe position, that Defendants Captain Shelby and Chief Dickerson considerreorganization by assigning some of Plaintiff’s duties to others.20. Defendant Dickerson informed Plaintiff that he thought Captain Shelby was goingto assist Plaintiff in the performance of his duties, which Shelby did not, and thatthe Chief never expected all of the responsibilities of the Records Bureau to behandled by Plaintiff alone.21. Defendant Dickerson asked Plaintiff to rescind the letter suggestingreorganization, which Plaintiff did, in exchange for Defendant Dickerson’spromise to assist Plaintiff with his duties.22. At this meeting, Defendant Dickerson told Plaintiff that he could return to roadpatrol if he wanted but that Dickerson preferred that Plaintiff stay in the Detective
2:13-cv-10771-JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 5 of 18 Pg ID 5Bureau. Plaintiff informed Chief Dickerson that he did not want to return to roadpatrol.23. Plaintiff’s duties in the record bureau included the processing of requests madepursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) being MCL 15.231 et seq.24. Since December of 2011 when Plaintiff assumed the supervision of the recordsbureau, all FOIA requests came directly to Plaintiff for his review and response.25. These duties included the downloading, and preservation of, patrol car video andpolice station video.26. On August 1, 2012, Plaintiff learned that an incident had occurred on themidnight shift in which a City of Romulus police officer allegedly struck ahandcuffed prisoner.27. Plaintiff heard Defendant Chief Dickerson in the open hallway talking to anunidentified person in which Defendant Dickerson admitted that he had spoken tothe victim, that the victim had requested a copy of the surveillance video tape andthat Defendant Chief denied the victim’s request.28. The general practice of the Romulus Police Department is to safeguard andmaintain a copy of all patrol car and surveillance videos for a period of 30 daysfrom the date of their making after which date the surveillance video isautomatically deleted from the Department’s computers and irretrievably lost.29. After hearing of the alleged criminal assault of a handcuffed prisoner by a City ofRomulus police officer, that the victim had requested a copy of the video and thatChief Dickerson informed the victim that he would not be given the video,
Page 1 and 2: 2:13-cv-10771-JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed
Page 3: 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?