Where a motion for summary disposition has been filed by the defendants in a dispute over a law enforcement license, the motion should be denied without prejudice because it relies on the legal premise that plaintiff’s license had lapsed when in reality the license was inactive.
“Before the Court is defendants’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). For the reasons explained in this opinion and order, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion for summary disposition without prejudice. Although the parties seem to agree that plaintiff’s law enforcement license has lapsed under MCL 29.609(11), the Court disagrees with the parties’ legal presumption. The Court instead concludes that plaintiff’s license was inactive under MCL 28.609(10). Because defendants’ motion for summary disposition relies on the legal premise that plaintiff’s license had lapsed, the Court denies the motion without prejudice. Defendants may refile another motion at the appropriate time, structuring their arguments on the foundation that plaintiff’s license was inactive.
“Plaintiff commenced this action against defendants, the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) and Timothy Bourgeois, for declaratory and mandamus relief relating to his law enforcement license. Plaintiff was a police officer with the Detroit Police Department (DPD). His license was ‘activated’ by the DPD in 2000 when he gained law enforcement authority and began work. On July 22, 2018, plaintiff was assisting other officers in moving some apparently unruly men from an area near the Greektown casino parking lot. The other officers allegedly had deescalated the situation and gotten the men to cooperate. However, while the group was moving toward an elevator to leave accompanied by the officers, plaintiff allegedly punched one of the men in the head without provocation and then continued to punch the man while he lay on the ground. As a result, plaintiff was arrested and charged with a number of offenses.
“On June 19, 2019, the day after plaintiff was arrested, DPD informed MCOLES that plaintiff’s law enforcement authority had been removed, effective June 2, 2019. After a further internal DPD administrative investigation and a hearing on March 18, 2021, plaintiff was to be terminated from employment. However, after an appeal and in lieu of arbitration, plaintiff and DPD entered into a ‘last chance’ agreement on May 27, 2021, which reduced plaintiff’s prior termination to a 30-day suspension, with time served. As a result, plaintiff was returned to ‘FULL DUTY’ by the DPD effective May 19, 2021. Plaintiff was not required to retake his oath of office or do anything else, per the agreement. He was given his gun and badge and carried that gun until July 20, 2021, when an internal review of MCOLES licensing revealed that plaintiff’s license was still inactive; plaintiff was thereafter put on ‘ADMINISTRATIVE DUTY NO GUN,’ pending the certification process from MCOLES. Per an inter-office memorandum from the Chief of Police, the license was inactive ‘pending a standards compliance review by MCOLES.’ Plaintiff was under the impression that DPD, per its statutory duty under MCL 28.609(10)(b), had communicated his reinstatement with the department to MCOLES. MCOLES maintains, however, that it did not receive any information that plaintiff’s law enforcement authority had been restored.
“The Court concludes that plaintiff’s license was inactive under MCL 28.609(10). Because defendants’ motion for summary disposition relies on the legal premise that plaintiff’s license had lapsed, the Court denies the motion without prejudice. Defendants may refile another motion at the appropriate time, structuring their arguments on the foundation that plaintiff’s license was inactive.”
Martin v. The Michigan Comm'n on Law Enforcement Standards; MiLW 04-108091, 8 pages; Court of Claims; Patel, J.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0