Attorney wants sheriff's department records following internal investigation of $20 theft
A plaintiff in a federal whistleblower lawsuit against the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Department has filed a motion questioning the department's handling of an investigation into a theft of $20 from a court employee’s car in Ypsilanti Township.
Former Deputy Eric Kuhn, who has a lawsuit pending against the county, is seeking records of the investigation, including a video showing what is believed to be a "high-ranking" sheriff's officer near the victim's car, the motion says.
Instead, he said a report was produced as part of an internal investigation, which found that a sheriff’s employee was not responsible for the larceny.
Sheriff Jerry Clayton declined to disclose details of the investigation, its findings or whether anyone was disciplined, saying he doesn't comment on internal investigations.
Clayton said his department's internal investigation of his staff was handled appropriately. Sheriff's special investigator Brian Miller initially investigated the case, then officials from the Michigan Sheriffs' Association MISSION board investigated, Clayton said.
The Michigan Sheriffs' Association is not a law enforcement agency, but Clayton said he didn't believe another law enforcement agency needed to be involved.
“There is no protocol that dictates we have to call the state police under any circumstances,” Clayton said. “We decide the best course of action.”
The MISSION board assigned two lieutenants from other law enforcement agencies to assist in the investigation after Clayton requested help, said Terrence Jungel, the Michigan Sheriffs' Association's executive director. He said the lieutenants worked with sheriff's department investigators, not independently of them, and their findings were turned over to the sheriff's department. Jungel said he did not have details on the case.
AnnArbor.com had filed an Aug. 24 Freedom of Information Act request with the county, seeking all video, audio and written records pertaining to the case, including records turned over by outside agencies.
The county denied the request, saying the records, including a video, are exempt from public release under state law because they are all part of an internal investigation. The county is expected to release some emails to AnnArbor.com that sheriff's officials exchanged with each other that pertain to the case, but are not considered part of the internal investigation.
Missing money
AnnArbor.com has pieced together some details of the larceny investigation from records obtained from Ypsilanti Township through a Sept. 26 Freedom of Information Act request and filings in Kuhn's federal whistleblower lawsuit.
Kuhn's suit, filed in March 2010, alleges he was retaliated against, and ultimately fired, for complaining about an improper internal investigation against him. It claims a white lieutenant disregarded orders and persisted with an internal investigation into a false rape claim against Kuhn, in whole, or in part, because Kuhn is black.
On Sept. 27, Kuhn's attorney, Nanette Cortese, filed a motion to reopen discovery, seeking records on the larceny investigation, including the video. The county is fighting the motion and says in court records that the video doesn't show anyone entering the victim's car. Cortese wants to take depositions from Ptaszek, Miller and anyone else involved in the case.
She argues that the records are relevant to Kuhn's case because the county's position has been that the department investigated Kuhn because it was required to follow policy. The motion says it is not possible to determine whether the county followed procedures in investigating a white officer in the theft case because the county "refuses to provide the records."
According to the motion, the county rejected a FOIA request she filed for those records, citing an exemption for pending civil litigation.
The motion does not name the sheriff's employee who was investigated in the larceny case. But it offers some details of the incident. It says that a Deputy 14B District Court clerk reportedly had money stolen from her car March 8 while it was parked at the township civic center in a lot shared by township and county employees.
Her husband had put $20 in a cup holder for her, the motion says, so she could have money for lunch. The next day, 14B District Court Administrator Kathy Collins sent an email to Mike Radzik, the township's police services coordinator, regarding the missing money.
“Are there security cameras in the back lot?" the email says. "(The clerk) things (sic) someone got in her car yesterday.”
Radzik replied, telling Collins to contact Jeff Allen, the township's director of residential services, who could review the video. The motion says a video was reviewed that showed someone near the victim's car.
"Apparently the video showed an employee, believed to be a high ranking officer, of the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department as the person being in the vicinity of ... (the) vehicle," the motion says.
Sheriff Jerry Clayton in a January 2011 photo.
Radzik told AnnArbor.com that he contacted Clayton after speaking with Allen. He said he felt it was logical to let Clayton determine how to proceed because the investigation could focus on a county employee. Ptaszek said he does not recall when the department contacted the Michigan Sheriff's Association for assistance.
A copy of the video was turned over to the sheriff's department, records show, but the township did not preserve a copy. The township's video was automatically recorded over, according the township's response to AnnArbor.com's FOIA request. In responding to the FOIA request, Allen sent a memo to the township clerk's office, writing that he could not retrieve the video.
"The reason for this is that the server has a finite amount of space and the machine continuously runs, eventually recording over itself," the memo says. "Currently, we are not able to view back to even last month, let alone back in March."
When Kuhn's attorney subpoenaed the records, the township's attorney, Douglas Winters, wrote that the only copy of the video was turned over to Miller, the sheriff's special investigator, on March 11.
Kuhn's motion says that findings of the investigation were not provided to Radzik, township officials or the theft victim. Clayton told AnnArbor.com he's under no obligation to provide the findings to Radzik, who is not a sheriff's department employee, or any other township officials.
On Thursday, attorneys for the county responded to Kuhn's motion, writing that he had a year of discovery and its too late in the proceedings to reopen discovery. Records related to the theft investigation have already been turned over, the response says. It says the white officer who was investigated was subjected to both internal and external investigations, which found he wasn't responsible for the theft from the unlocked car in the township parking lot.
The response says, "a county employee was identified in the vicinity of her vehicle for a brief period of time, and an investigation was completed. That investigation was completed in April 2011 and determined that there was no basis to support a claim of theft because the person in question never entered ... (the) car."
Read the court filings:
Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached by phone at (734) 623-2527 and email at leehiggins@annarbor.com.
Comments
FedUpinA2
Thu, Oct 13, 2011 : 3:50 p.m.
The real issue here what is right and what is wrong. What is legal and what is illegal. We live in a society that is governed by rules. Do the rules only apply to one group of people and no one else? When there is video evidence of a crime and it disappears that smacks of a cover up. How could the sheriff not realize that he and his whole department will be judged by the way he handles this incident? To excuse this theft and look the other way is so very damaging to everyone involved. I hope that all the facts are brought out and all the information is made public so we can judge the actions of all those involved in this incident. It will help us decide who we want as our sheriff in the next election.
snapshot
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 : 4:55 a.m.
This is a pathetic display of cover up....who police's the police? Apparently no one and they are above the law by denying FOI's and losing documents. And that's for 20 bucks, what about all that pot and drug money?
Ricebrnr
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 2:11 p.m.
Yes $20 is a paltry sum (to some) but at what point does it become "real" money worthy of concern? The fact is it's is not about the money at all. This is about openness and accountability. Both of which are always sorely lacking in a bureaucracy UNLESS people take action to keep it from being so. What we are seeing here is the implementation of the "Broken Windows Theory" and I for one am glad to see it. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory</a>
jcwest32
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 9:45 a.m.
"Undersheriff Mark Ptaszek confirmed to AnnArbor.com that no police report was created after the theft was reported in March" So now the Sheriff's Office can deciede when to not file a criminal report when a citizen is stating that a crime occurred. Does this mean that a larceny is no longer a crime and that it does not need to be investigated. What is the SO's policy when a crime is committed and someone from the department may be the suspect. (AANEWS something to look into) What about the video? It seems like the SO is fast to put video's out there when it is a Deputy involved. Where is this one?
RJA
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 2:13 a.m.
This isn't about the $20. Big whoop, her husband put it in a cup holder for her to get lunch. I think many are making a moutain out of a mole-hill. Stupid #1, put $20 in an unlocked car. Stupid #2 not putting the money in her purse and taking it inside. Wonder if this was a set-up???
pluto77
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 1:10 a.m.
With the paltry wages paid to these dedicated servants of the people....who could blame them.
tinkerbell
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 4:50 a.m.
I was a dedicated servant of the people and paid paltry wages. I wouldn't steal a penny.
15crown00
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 12:36 a.m.
who did or who didn't do what isn't the real problem here.the real issue is an agency investigating itself. whenever that happens that agency leaves itself vulnerable to the charge of "the fix was (is)in." it only makes sense to call in an independent investigating body. it's a big mess now because at least some of the evidence is tainted or for whatever the reason unusable. what do you do next??????? realistically probably cut a deal of some sort.
Treelover
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 9:35 p.m.
Questions for some: So...you would be okay with someone stealing $20 from you? Please post where you park your car with $ in it! Where is the line with "its only $20"....$40, $50...$200.. a theft is a theft... If you were accused of this theft would YOU be treated the same way??? If another police-person was accused of this would they be given the same treatment?? Or special treatment for "High-Ranking" officer?
paul wiener
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 8:15 p.m.
I kept scrolling down the article, certain to find the punchline to a joke, or perhaps a correction of the misprint. But no, it kept saying $20, as in twenty dollars. No one seems to have a problem spending many hours and countless hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars "investigating" this awful crime. I'm still hoping it's a joke, though. If not, it's merely another reason to get rid of all the police and town administrators in back of this absurd, embarrassing, trivial excuse for a news story and moral brinksmanship.
BTO
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 8:14 p.m.
It seems to me that most people are missing the whole point of this article. Kuhn's attorny is bringing this whole matter up in court because when accusations were made against Kuhn there was an investigation but when there was evidence against another employee the investigation wasn't as complete. The point seems to be that discipline isn't fairly and evenly enforced.
djacks24
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 7:20 p.m.
I think you should expect to lose $20 left sitting in a car out in the open, especially while leaving your car unlocked. Even in a county parking lot. There are places I've worked in the past that had employee parking that still wasn't open to the public, and people still had things come up missing left and right. Locked doors and keeping valuables out of view is keeping the honest folks honest. I personally don't look for things sitting out in the open in peoples cars, but if I see something I leave it be and let the individual know if I know who's car it is. This is basic common sense. On the other hand, did anybody actually check the validity of the claim? Is there evidence, besides the persons word making the claim of missing money? I don't know what the big cover up is. If nobody seen anybody on the tape actually enter the car, did anybody consider maybe the woman who's car it is doesn't know what she's talking about? Like, for instance why turn the County Sheriffs department upside down, if maybe there was never $20 left in the car in the first place?
trespass
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 12:24 a.m.
Then it would be simple to just release the video so that we can all see that this is much ado about nothing. The fact they are hiding the video make it look like there is something being covered up.
C. S. Gass
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 6:48 p.m.
Really? Someone who makes $70k a year (or more) is going to risk his job for $20? What idiot would believe that? Move along, nothing to see here, seriously...
trespass
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.
Like Watergate, the cover up is worse than the crime. The fact that there was never a police report written up and the fact that the victim was told to "forget about it" shows that they are trying to cover up what happened. The fact that they won't release the video so that we can all see if the high ranking sheriff's officer entered the car, is also an indication of cover up. It is not true that internal investigation can never be released. There was a case where two police officers were caught in a prostitution sting and the court ruled that the public's interest outweighed the exemption. In addition the video may be evidence used in the internal investigation but alone it is just a document that should be disclosed. The analysis and results of the investigtion might fall under this exemption but not the video itself. Also the victim never said it was a Sheriff's officer because she did not know who took it. Thus, if it was an internal investigation then someone else saw enough on the video to file a complaint against the officer. The public should see the video.
free2eat
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 4:59 p.m.
I have a boy who was in Washtenaw County Jail twice, once for tabs and once for not getting a tail light repaired. Yes he should have taken care of both in a timely manner and hopefully he knows better now. However, both times his wallet was empty when it was given back. He said he's spoken to others and he's not alone in that. It shows a lack of ethics overall if you ask me.
tinkerbell
Tue, Oct 11, 2011 : 4:47 a.m.
If your son had money in his wallet, why didn't he get his tabs or fix his tail light.
Roadman
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 4:14 p.m.
It should be noted that the alleged "false rape" claimant was eventually charged with making a false police report, pled guilty and was sentenced to probation by Judge Archie Brown. Defended by County Defender Lloyd Powell, she apologized in open court during her sentencing. What Deputy Kuhn has been put through is sad. It appears he is a good deputy trying to do his job.
Peter
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 3:37 p.m.
It's $20.00..... Please. Use your time and resources to investigate Rapes, Murders, Major theft and maybe getting the hobo's off our streets. Another top notch investigative story from are friends at the Ann Arbor News.
Adam Betz
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.
It's $20 today...what about tomorrow when it's somebody's life when they are thrown in jail, fined, humiliated, fired from their job, etc. because we have some dishonest police working for the citizenry? Think outside the box and think beyond the 25 meter target.
gofigure
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.
I guess I'm missing something somewhere. What does $20 missing from a clerks car have to do with the Officer involved in the whistle blower lawsuit.?? I don't see the connection.
dotdash
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 2:38 p.m.
***IMPORTANT**** Your links provide full names of alleged victims of sex crimes. Is this your policy?!?!?
dotdash
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 3:21 p.m.
Perhaps you are right about the ?!?!?!? :) Just wanted to catch the AA.com moderator's eye to have them make sure this is consistent with their policies in case they didn't realize what was in those links.
Rizzle
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 3:09 p.m.
Fair game when it's proven that the accusation was false. And a picture too no need for ?!?!?!?!?! <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/former-deputy-moves-on-after-rape-allegation-destroyed-his-career/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/former-deputy-moves-on-after-rape-allegation-destroyed-his-career/</a>
chubabuba
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 2:31 p.m.
So if I walk "near" a car...and the person "reports" $20 stolen, I'm guilty? HMMMM, maybe it was misplaced or fell out of the door...really $20...I doubt anyone would risk their job for your $20, maybe next time leave a stack of $100s on the dash.
trespass
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 5:50 p.m.
That is what they say the video shows but we won't ever know what was on the video because they have buried it.
Chris 8 - YPSI PRIDE
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 1:56 p.m.
"The reason for this is that the server has a finite amount of space and the machine continuously runs, eventually recording over itself," the memo says. "Currently, we are not able to view back to even last month, let alone back in March." Baloney ! A company I worked for was able to discuss something picked up on a recorder in September and sit and discuss it with me in December. This was in 2007. This was a company with much fewer resources then a taxpayer funded Sheriff's Department. Even back in 2007 servers could go back quite far and were helpful with performance issues, errors caught at later dates, thieves, slackers, ect ect. In any case if this tape is floating around within another agency as the Sheriff's and Police Departments would tell anyone being questioned, let us search if you have nothing to hide. Finding excuses to not release this under FOIL to anyone is a good indicator that there may have been a high ranking offical caqught red handed. Cameras don't lie so I see no reason why the Department does not practice what it preaches. Release the tape or otherwise it raises questions about the integrity of the Sheriff's Department itself. If there is visible evidence of anyone taking property from someone elses vehicle without permission, that person should be treated as any other citizen would. That means an arrest, charges and then tell it to the Judge and Jury. I don't care if it's 2 bucks. 20 bucks, or 20,000 bucks.
Adam Betz
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 1:45 p.m.
Thanks to the journalist and AnnArbor.com for covering this. It's only $20 but that is not the issue here. The issue is how much can we trust our local police agencies. It is disheartening that these internal investigations cannot be released to the public. It makes me wonder why. Can anyone shed any light onto why they would not share this information with the general public?
LJ
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 1:39 p.m.
Anyone remember when Clayton ran for sheriff? He preached and promised transparency. What happened to that. Oh let me guess....high ranking official says it all.
Cash
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 9:42 p.m.
trepass, That is not good to hear. But I appreciate your dedication.
trespass
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 5:48 p.m.
I have been trying to meet with Sheriff Clayton for months now but he won't meet with me because I want to give him information about how the investigation of the Taser death was screwed up. He doesn't want to hear it. What about the detective who had a car accident and failed to report it until the next day. Real transparency on that case too. The Sheriff's office is just falling back into the ways of the previous sheriff.
OLDTIMER3
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 1:37 p.m.
So if I happen to be in the area a bank was roobed with out me ever entering the bank I should be accused of robbing it according to Kuhn and his attorney .
Ron Granger
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 1:29 p.m.
In Washington State, a recent supreme court ruling held that police internal investigations are not protected and must be disclosed. That's a big deal because they've had countless controversial shoootings, and other alleged corruption where the police have refused to disclose. Sounds like Michigan needs the same.
cinnabar7071
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 1:26 p.m.
"The county denied the request, saying the records, including a video, are exempt from public release under state law because they are all part of an internal investigation. " Thats all I need to know, if you dont have anything to hide let the information out.
Blanch DuBois
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 12:32 p.m.
All the "Good Ol' Boys" are okay with the "Good O'l' Boys" network....until they are no longer part of it.
Cash
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 1:29 p.m.
Except perhaps they were NEVER part of it.
Robbo
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 12:09 p.m.
So ridiculous.
Gorc
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 12:03 p.m.
This is not about $20. This is about Eric Kuhn and his attorney retaliating against the Sheriff's department over his whistleblowers lawsuit. I don't know if his whistleblower lawsuit has merit or not, but this is an attempt to discredit the WCSD.
Cash
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 7:16 p.m.
It sounds to me like if WCSD cannot prove that they have procedure in place to protect the taxpayers from these lawsuits and then follow those procedures.....they deserve lawsuit and will continue to have them filed. They have left themselves WIDE OPEN to lawsuits by not having "any protocol". this allows them to pick and choose who and how they investigate. Discrimination abounds in that environment. Frankly from what is in this article, I'd say Mr Kuhn has a great case.
Gorc
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 6:14 p.m.
Cash - most attorneys will exercise every angle or advantage to win their client's case. Mr. Kuhn's attorney is doing just that, she is exposing WCSD with how they handle internal investigations or she is trying to public embarrass the department or someone within the department. I never said I have proof and if you can't connect the dots...that's not my problem.
Michigan Man
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 1:57 p.m.
Gorc - Totally with you on this one - sounds like we have too many lawyers with not enough real work to do.
cinnabar7071
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 1:38 p.m.
The sheriffs department discredits itself by not releaseing the information requested. Whether someone did something wrong or not it sure looks that way when they try and hide the info.
Cash
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 1:32 p.m.
Well if you don't know that his lawsuit has merit, what proof do you have that it is an attempt to discredit WCSD? Perhaps it is an attempt to prove discrimination. Only a judge and jury can determine that.
Ron Granger
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 1:30 p.m.
Sounds like the sheriff's department is doing a fine job of discrediting themselves.
rs
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 11:38 a.m.
This is not about the amount of money, its the principle of this situation. This could point to a larger problem with this officer's morals, ethics and abuse of power. This is what they call a "red flag" issue (if in fact the officer did go through a car and steal the $20).
Cash
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 11:17 a.m.
' "There is no protocol that dictates we have to call the state police under any circumstances," Clayton said. "We decide the best course of action." ' Exactly why lawsuits get filed, sir! YOU should not be deciding which officers get investigated and who investigates them! It goes back to the 'fox guarding the hen house' concept. As a taxpayer, I would feel a lot better if you had a procedure for any accusation of wrongdoing of an officer at any level. Please write one and have it reviewed by legal. As a taxpayer, I would feel better if you then followed that procedure in exactly the same way for EVERY level of employee at WCSD. Please follow it and treat all employees equally. 'Radzik emailed Clayton on March 9, writing, "Will you please call me when you have a minute? I need to discuss a potentially sensitive personnel matter with you." ' I would have loved to hear the telephone conversation after that email. Because it seems all written communication ended after that email.
Cash
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 10:38 a.m.
dading, Honesty and integrity are brought into question here. In any case of accusation against a law enforcement officer, another department should be called in. Not accusing anyone in this case, but if someone stole $20 out of your car, would you trust them to be responsible for securing your property? Or would you even trust them at all? I sure wouldn't.
Turd Ferguson
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 10:31 a.m.
Who can I give the $20 to so I can save bother parties $1000's ?!?
jwally
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 10:29 a.m.
$20 bucks, $20 bucks? I'll cover the lose (plus some) out of my own pocket if it will save the county a stupid amount of money, man hours and other related costs chasing this trivial issue.
aareader
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 6:44 p.m.
As noted before. It is not the money. It is much bigger. Read the posts by Cash.
Ron Granger
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 1:31 p.m.
No, we don't. It's about honesty and full disclosure.
jwally
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 10:49 a.m.
should say "loss", not lose. Oh well, you get the point.
Macabre Sunset
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 10:27 a.m.
Yes, this is exactly why we have the whistleblower laws. Good job all around here.
dading dont delete me bro
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 10:08 a.m.
seriou$ly? over $20?
aareader
Mon, Oct 10, 2011 : 6:43 p.m.
Read the posts by Cash... in case you did not. The issue is not the money but much bigger.