Reward offered in assault of U-M hospital cafeteria worker; original suspect's case dismissed
The University of Michigan Department of Public Safety is offering a $500 reward for information in the June assault of a hospital cafeteria manager, after the original suspect’s case was dismissed last week.
Police said a masked man approached the manager about 6:40 p.m. June 24 and pulled out a stun gun during an apparent robbery attempt. The man knocked the manager to the ground, leaving him with head and back injuries, before running out the south entrance of C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, spokeswoman Diane Brown said.
Police arrested Michael Dwayne Thomas on June 27 in connection with the case and he was arraigned on several assault and weapons charges and held on a $100,000 cash or surety bond.
Several days later, at a July 6 preliminary examination, Thomas’ case was dismissed. The prosecutor’s office reserved the right to reauthorize charges, but police received additional information leading them in another direction, Brown said.
Washtenaw County Chief Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller said Thursday that the right was reserved on a procedural basis.
"In this particular case, as the investigation continued, it was decided there was insufficient evidence at that time to proceed based on information that existed at the time of the preliminary investigation," he said.
University of Michigan police released this photo Thursday of a suspect in the assault of a U-M cafeteria worker.
Surveillance video obtained last week has indicated two people, a man and a woman, were involved, rather than just one man, as police initially had thought.
University of Michigan police released these photos Thursday of a suspect in the assault of a U-M cafeteria worker.
“As the investigation had continued to proceed and follow-up witness interviews were conducted and additional information came forward, added suspect information was developed,” Brown said. “That led to having the initial charges dismissed without prejudice, allowing for them to have the right to reissue them.”
Police now say a male suspect used a stun gun in an attempt to incapacitate the cafeteria manager. The man fled south, removing a dreadlock wig he had been wearing and placing it into a messenger bag. A female took the messenger bag from the man in a stairwell and fled in a newer, dark-colored, two-door Monte Carlo.
The man is described as a thin, black male in his mid to late-20s, approximately 5 feet, 9 inches tall. He is believed to have a medium complexion and was wearing a white T-shirt and black pants.
Police describe the woman as a thin, black female in her early to mid-20s, between 5 feet, 3 inches and 5 feet, 6 inches tall. She is believed to have a light complexion and was wearing hospital scrubs and possibly a wig, police say.
Anyone with information is asked to contact U-M police Detective Ryan Cavanaugh at 734-763-7179 or U-M’s anonymous tip line at 1-800-863-1355.
Watch for continuing coverage of this story on AnnArbor.com.
Heidi Fenton covers police and courts for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at heidifenton@annarbor.com or 734-623-4673. You also can follow her on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
Ricki Lee
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 11:36 a.m.
I sure hopes that family sues the University, the police dept and anyone else who caused this young man to be incarcerated!!
aawolve
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 12:56 p.m.
Stunning incompetence by every agency involved, starting with UM security.
racerx
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 3:16 p.m.
@aawolve-I've worked with DPS in the past and if there was a campus emergency, they would not be my first call. Incompetence? I wouldn't go that far, but, Paul Bratt (mall cop) is on speed dial.
kdadnick
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 10:56 a.m.
Let the police do their work. I understand there is some outrage, but the article does not say the charges against the subject were dropped....it says they were dismissed without prejudice, allowing the prosecutor the opportunity to reinstate them. Mr. Thomas may be the wrong individual, and there should be some recompense if he is, but it's time to allow the investigation to continue first. There have been too many HUGE public cases in the last few years where the seemingly "right person" has been released of major criminal charges due to lack of evidence. Apparently many Ann Arbor.com readers agree with those decisions.
Roadman
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:43 a.m.
Wow! Yet another case where Prosecutor Brian Mackie's office sheepishly drops charges and a seemingly innocent person is released from the county jail. Who knows what lingering emotional scars this poor young colege student may have over the obviously traumatic incident of being arrested. Remember the case out of Pittsfield Township a few weeks ago where a couple was held for weeks on lurid charges of sexual assault and kidnapping of a young woman? The Prosecutor never explained what really happened in that case - and he is mum on this case as well. We need a change at the County Prosecutor's office in leadership. I am appalled that citizens with no apparent adverse background find themselves jailed on flimsy proofs. It is a sign that the police and prosecution are not doing diligent enough detective work before authorizing arrest warrants. I do not want to see this type of incident happen any more.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 12:49 p.m.
This from Law.com: probable cause n. sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime.... Until you know exactly what the PC was, which since this is an ongoing investigation I highly doubt you do, you have only opinions. Opinions are worthless when you don't know the facts.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 1:27 a.m.
And just for those that don't already know...probable cause is all that is required for an arrest. The evidentiary part comes at trial, which oddly enough comes after the arrest
Matt Cooper
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 1:18 a.m.
Sorry to say, but I find this argument to be rather humorous. You want more information about an ongoing criminal investigation that most likely doesn't involve you in any way, shape or form. "...that will reassure us that we are safe from premature judgements of the police." And yet you prematurely judge them with every post you make about the police or prosecutors office in Washtenaw county. Is the pot now calling the kettle black? Face it, you have no information, and will not gain any information about this ongoing investigation and yet still feel a need to call the police whatever insulting and demeaning names you wish to call them. When people call other people names without anything akin to proper information, they make themselves look like buffoons. Take that to heart, please.
trespass
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 9:02 p.m.
The problem with your argument "withold judgement until you have more information" is that we will never get more information because the police and prosecutors will hide it. What most of us are calling for is an explanation by the police and prosecutors that will reassure us that we are safe from premature judgements of the police.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 6:56 p.m.
Secondly, anyone who has ever investigated any crime (and yes I have done this myself) will tell you that you go with the best information you have on hand at the time. If new information emerges, you follow that lead to wherever it takes you. If that new info. changes the course of your investigation, you go with it. Addressing new information and changing the course of your investigation to accomodate that new info. does not, in any way, shape or form indicate errors in judgement or incompetance. It simply means you developed new information.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 6:53 p.m.
Well, PC doesn't "disappear". The police were acting on the best information they had at the time of arrest, which they obviously felt amounted to PC. You seem to assume that the police were wrong from the outset, and my point is that you don't have a clue whether they were wrong or not. Your mistrust of any and all things law enforcement lead you to make assumptions you have no business making. No, I cannot articulate what the PC might have been. But neither can you, and therefore cannot dispute it. Unless of course you have intimate details the rest of the public is not privy to, which I find very, very difficult to believe. The fact of the matter is that you know nothing of the investigation, have no idea what the information is that the cops felt gave them PC, and yet choose to make snap judgements against the cops simply because you don't like them.
trespass
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 2:32 p.m.
The best-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".[2] Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true". So Matt, can your articulate the probable cause that existed at the time of arrest but dissappeared at the time of the preliminary hearing? Did it disappear because the suspect was on video surveillance in Ypsilanti at nearly the same time as the crime was committed?
Matt Cooper
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 12:44 p.m.
Chef: And of course you have firsthand knowledge of what evidence the cops had and based the original arrest on, right? It's easy to sit back and play Tuesday morning quarterback, but until and unless you have some knowledge of what evidence they based the arrest upon, all you have is your opinion. Insofar as arrests are concerned, opinions mean squat. "When issuing criminal charges against someone it is the responsibility of the officers, detectives and prosecutors to execute due diligence in proving their case". No, that part comes at trial. Do you understand at all the legal standard of probable cause? Google it. "In no way shape or form should someone lose their freedom based on circumstantial evidence, prior to a trial of their peers." Wrong again. Arrest prior to trial is an extremely common practice in every county, city, village and state in the union. Why do you think Casey Anthony just spent 3 years locked up? Hmmm?
Cable Chef
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:48 a.m.
Again, it's about transparency more than anything else. To just whimsically issue and then dismiss the charges with no explanation whatsoever is a grievous abuse of authority. Someone needs to be held accountable for the disruption in this mans life. And yes, if I were attacked I would want the culprit captured as soon as humanly possible. That's just normal. However, I wouldn't want the police to zero in on just one suspect if their evidence was shaky. When issuing criminal charges against someone it is the responsibility of the officers, detectives and prosecutors to execute due diligence in proving their case. In no way shape or form should someone lose their freedom based on circumstantial evidence, prior to a trial of their peers. To do otherwise is just reckless. As for me doing something about it, I vote. How about you?
Susanne
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:26 a.m.
Cable Chef On the flip side, if you were the one attacked, wouldn't you want the person or people responsible in custody as fast as possible? Also, if someone matched whatever evidence the police had at the time, but they let him or her slip through their fingers because they were too afraid to falsely accuse them wouldn't you be pissed? If I were falsely accused of something and held against my will, of course I would be pissed! However, I do understand that they have to go with whatever evidence they have at the time. I would rather them follow the evidence they have then ignore it. The unfortunate fellow that was falsely accused can pursue the issue if he wishes. That is how the system works. If you have better ideas for how the system should work, do something about it.
Cable Chef
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 2:30 a.m.
It's about transparency. Maybe you'd feel differently if you were the one falsely accused of a crime you didn't commit and then held against your will. Or would you still say it's ok, they were just doing their job? Didn't think so, I wouldn't either.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 1:24 a.m.
I find it humorous when people who weren't in any way shape or form involved with the investigation start to cry about what a lack of evidence the police had, or which direction they think the cops should have gone in. If those people think they are such outstanding and expert investigators why aren't they on the police force? With all their experience, wisdom, knowledge and street smarts I'm sure they could solve all of Ann Arbor's crime problems in a matter of minutes. Fact of the matter is none of you have any clue what evidence the police had or didn't have, nor do you have any idea what leads they were pursuing. And since this is an ongoing investigation, the cops aren't going to tell you. Nor should they, lest they tip their hand and let the perpetrator get away. The cops have evidence, you have speculation and opinion.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 7:06 p.m.
"Investigate" all you wish, friend. But ongoing police investigations are not subject to FOIA requests, so your chances of finding out anything before the final disposition of this case are none (zero, zilch, nada). Pretend to know all you want, the fact remains: you have no idea what you are talking about in terms of probable cause involved in this case. Secondly, the police are under no requirement to report why someone is released prior to the end of the investigation. And also, as of yet, you still have not disputed a single point from my original post, so I will assume I am correct. I know it's so much easier to pretend to know something, but it's often best to not do that until you know actual facts upon which to base your opinion. Finally, no I never said walking a beat is the only way. However, they put their lives on the line for you and I every time they punch in for work. You sit here often times posting how badly cops suck and how unprofessional and incompetant they are. I'll just say I have a lot more respect for what they do in their job than what you (and/or I) do here.
trespass
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 2:25 p.m.
@Matt- but you made statements about a police investigation that you have no (ZERO, nada, zilch) direct information about. Yours were just blindly supportive. At least I know the case was dismissed after he was in jail for 9 days without explanation. I will also investigate and find out more information through FOIA requests and sources. Will you dedicate the time to inform your fellow citizens? Police are not the only people who protect the lives of others and walking a beat is not the only way to serve our fellow citizens.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 12:36 p.m.
And you decry every police action as being illegal, unethical and unfounded. According to you the police can do nothing right. And yet you cannot dispute a single point I made in my original post. And as for mu support of the police, you're darn right I support them. When you walk a beat to protect the lives of citizens, I will support you as well. I just think it's silly for people to make statements about police investigations that they have no (ZERO, nada, zilch) direct information about, So your point would be what?
trespass
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 11:21 a.m.
And you have no evidence that they had any evidence except for your blind trust of police. You have supported the police in every story on AA.com, no matter what they did. Police can do no wrong!
dick
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 12:36 a.m.
Just another day for the justice stystem of the U.$.A.
Roadman
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:44 a.m.
And of the Office of County Prosecutor in Washtenaw County.
Cable Chef
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 11:09 p.m.
I want, as should all of you, a detailed explanation as to why the charges were issued in the first place. The I want more detailed information as to why the charges were dismissed. It's unbelievable that law enforcement isn't held accountable for their short-sighted, narrow minded lambasting of this young man. They should each be charged with Kidnapping and or False Imprisonment. Then the county should be held accountable for defaming this individual and depriving him of his freedom. I especially like how they'll say "but we gave him a bail, he could have gotten out if he wanted to", all the while knowing that the bail is so high that no one in his position could afford to get out. Our laws are a damn joke. Most of them are made up money grabs, such as the seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws. These are things that, if not obeyed, could hurt you nd only you. But somehow these laws make you safer from the guy not wearing one, yeah right. Our system is broken and frankly, it disgusts me.
nickcarraweigh
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 10:44 p.m.
Inexplicable and outrageous behavior on the part of all law enforcement personnel involved. When the State unleashes its power on any member of the citizenry, it should be damned well sure of what it is doing. I hope the usual annarbor.com suspects who believe the police, prosecutors and courts never do wrong are paying attention; but I am sure they are not. Particularly egregious was the behavior of UM hospital, which must have had these previously unpublished photos in its possession all along. If I were the wrongfully imprisoned Michael Dwayne Thomas I would be lawyer shopping now, and house, car, vacation, and retirement plan shopping a little ways down the road. This is going to cost taxpayers a bundle.
trespass
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 10:25 p.m.
Great Job, UM Campus Police and Washtenaw County Prosecutors! You put a WCC college student in jail for 9 days. What was the evidence against him? Was there a rush to judgement (obviously)? Why don't the police department or the prosecutor's office have to explain when they suddenly dismiss a case against a citizen who has been defamed and deprived of their liberty? The same thing happened recently in the Pittsfield township case of a couple accused of raping a young woman. Is someone going to explain that miscarriage of justice? The least that needs to be done is have an investigation by the DPS Oversight Committee to see how the campus police could proceed when there is no credible evidence.
Roadman
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:47 a.m.
Yeah, it's kinda like Mississippi in the 1930s. The police, prosecution, and judicial system are instumentalities of injustice.