Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40AMERICAN POLICE BEAT: AUGUST 2016 23 I n a precedent-setting decision, the Michi- gan Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Detroit Police Of- ficers Association and Of- ficers Nevin Hughes, Sean Harris and William Little. The 5 to 2 ruling means all charges against the officers will be dropped. “This was an attempt by the anti-police individu- als to intermingle Garrity interviews with criminal charges,” noted Detroit POA President Mark Diaz. “Had we lost, anything an officer says during a Garrity inter- view could be used against them criminally, which is clearly a violation of the Garrity Rule. “We stood our ground and preserved not just the rights of Detroit police officers but the rights of all law enforce- ment officers across the na- tion. The decision marks an important and monumental precedent for the entire pro- fession.” At issue was whether false statements by the three gang squad officers during an internal police probe could be used against them in a criminal proceeding. In November, 2009, a vid- eo showed Officer Hughes beating a man while on duty outside a Detroit gas station. The man filed a complaint that led to an internal investigation by the Detroit Police Department’s Office of the Chief Investiga- tor. According to court re- cords, Hughes made false statements during the inves- tigation “under the threat of dismissal from his job. ” After a video recording of the incident surfaced, Hughes was charged in the 36th District Court with felony misconduct in office, misdemeanor assault and battery, and obstruction of justice. The two other police of- ficers, Harris and Little, who had been standing nearby during the incident, also made false statements under “the threat of dismissal from their jobs,” denying the al- legations against Hughes during the internal investiga- tion. They were also charged in the 36th District Court with obstruc- tion of jus- tice. D i s t r i c t Court Judge Katherine L. Hansen ruled that defendants’ statements during the investigation could not be used against them, citing the Disclosures by Law Enforcement Offi- cers Act, which says an invol- untary statement made by a law enforcement officer may not be used against them in a criminal proceeding. Prosecutors appealed and Wayne Circuit Court Bruce U. Morrow upheld the lower court’s dismissal but the Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed, remanding the cases to the district court for reinstatement. The appeals court said nei- ther the Fifth Amendment nor the act barred the use of defendants’ false statements in the criminal proceed- ings. In the Michigan Supreme Court opinion, written by Justice Brian K. Zahra, the court said under the act, any information provided by a law enforcement officer, if compelled under threat of O Officers in the clear; anti-police forces fficers in the clear; anti-police forces in prosecutor’s office dealt huge defeat in prosecutor’s office dealt huge defeat any employment sanction by the officer’s employer, cannot be used against him or her in criminal proceed- ings. “The act does not distin- guish between true and false statements. Therefore, even if false, the offi- cer’s statements cannot be used against the officer in a subsequent prosecution,” Zahra said. In a dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Mark- man and David Vi v i a n o d i s - agreed the act precludes the use of false statements by a law enforcement officer in a prosecution for obstruction of justice. Judge Markman wrote, “False statements do not constitute ‘information’ and therefore are not protected by the DLEOA. Lies do not constitute ‘information’ as that term is commonly defined and understood. ‘Information’ is commonly defined as knowledge. Lies do not impart knowledge. Indeed, one becomes in- creasingly less informed as a result of lies.” “The act does not distinguish between true and false statements. Therefore, even if false, the officer’s statements cannot be used against the officer in a subsequent prosecution,” Zahra said. “This was an attempt by the anti-police individuals to in- termingle Garrity interviews with criminal charges,” noted Detroit POA President Mark Diaz. Three cops cleared of charges, including obstruction of justice and making false statements A compelling new novel that explores the stubbornly interpersonal dimension of detective work. Inhardcover ande-book. Availablewhereverbooksaresold.