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 6 of 18 Pg ID 6Plaintiff downloaded and saved the video of the incident on the Romulus PoliceDepartment computer.30. Defendant Captain Shelby knew that the video existed because he had personallyviewed the video when it was played in Plaintiff’s office.31. On September 21, 2012, a FOIA request was faxed to the Romulus PoliceDepartment by attorney Michael Rataj which concerned the assault of thehandcuffed prisoner, including, among other things, a request for any and allcopies of the video. (Rataj correspondence, Ex. A.)32. On September 24, 2012, Plaintiff received the FOIA request.33. Pursuant to his job duties, Plaintiff prepared a FOIA response letter and requestedall documents/videos, making all of the appropriate exemptions and redactions asprovided in the statute.34. Plaintiff then presented the FOIA packet for Defendant Dickerson’s review.35. When Defendant Dickerson asked what the packet involved, Plaintiff respondedthat the materials involved “the punch” described above.36. Shortly after Plaintiff had spoken with Defendant Dickerson, Defendant CaptainShelby came to Plaintiff’s office and summoned him to meet in DefendantDickerson’s office.37. Once in Defendant Chief Dickerson’s office, Defendant Dickerson asked Plaintiff“Why do we have this?” referring to the video tape which captured the assault ofthe handcuffed prisoner.38. Plaintiff responded that he “had saved it” referring to the video which had beendigitally downloaded on Plaintiff’s department issued computer.
2:13-cv-10771-JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 7 of 18 Pg ID 739. Defendant Chief Dickerson responded that he thought the video was only savedfor 30 days and asked Plaintiff why he had saved this particular video.40. Plaintiff explained to Defendant Chief Dickerson that plaintiff had saved thevideo because (1) he had a duty as a FOIA coordinator to preserve any requesteddocuments [here the victim had orally requested the video from DefendantDickerson well within the 30 days of the incident] and not allow their destructionto avoid their release and (2) he expected an investigation of the incident to becompleted and (3) the existence of the video would be of obvious importance tosuch investigation as it constituted actual video evidence of the incident.41. Defendant Dickerson stated that “I didn’t know that this [the video] was inexistence, I guess I’ll have to start an investigation now. Well actually I do havean investigation. I gave him [the victim] a complaint packet. I’m waiting for himto return it to complete the investigation.” This struck Plaintiff as odd since anyinvestigation should have commenced immediately after Defendant Dickersonlearned that a citizen had accused a City of Romulus Police Officer of assaultinghim while he was handcuffed and in the custody and control of the City ofRomulus Police Department.42. Plaintiff told Defendant Dickerson that if there was an open investigation, whichwas news to Plaintiff, that would qualify as an exemption under FOIA, but sincethe video was in existence, the City of Romulus Police Department was, inPlaintiff’s opinion as the FOIA Coordinator, delaying the inevitable and that thevideo would have to be released at some point.
Page 1 and 2: 2:13-cv-10771-JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed
Page 5: 2:13-cv-10771-JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed

Romulus Police Chief Dickerson lawsuit.pdf - MLive.com

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?