Friday, November 13, 2020

11132020 - Bernita Sims White Murder - Podcase - East Lansing Crime Warp Ep 4: Woman shot at Potter Park Zoo


East Lansing Crime Warp Ep 4: Woman shot at Potter Park Zoo
The State News Podcast Network and Case Dekoning
Maddie Monroe, Hannah Brock
November 13, 2020

This week, Hannah Brock and Maddie Monroe discuss game day gathering violations and a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump's campaign. Then, Brock and Monroe dissect the murder of Bernita White, who was shot by a sniper as she entered Potter Park Zoo.





Bernita Sims White murder case: 07:13 - 27:41

Sunday, September 27, 2020

OIDV Victims: Not protected under Color Of Law and Federal Civil Rights Statutes









The vast majority of the law enforcement officers in this country perform their very difficult jobs with respect for their communities and in compliance with the law. Even so, there are incidents in which this is not the case. This document outlines the laws enforced by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) that address police misconduct and explains how you can file a complaint with DOJ if you believe that your rights have been violated.

Federal laws that address police misconduct include both criminal and civil statutes. These laws cover the actions of State, county, and local officers, including those who work in prisons and jails. In addition, several laws also apply to Federal law enforcement officers. The laws protect all persons in the United States (citizens and non-citizens).

Each law DOJ enforces is briefly discussed below. In DOJ investigations, whether criminal or civil, the person whose rights have been reportedly violated is referred to as a victim and often is an important witness. DOJ generally will inform the victim of the results of the investigation, but we do not act as the victim's lawyer and cannot give legal advice as a private attorney could. 

The various offices within DOJ that are responsible for enforcing the laws discussed in this document coordinate their investigative and enforcement efforts where appropriate. For example, a complaint received by one office may be referred to another if necessary to address the allegations. In addition, more than one office may investigate the same complaint if the allegations raise issues covered by more than one statute. 

What is the difference between criminal and civil cases? 
Criminal and civil laws are different. Criminal cases usually are investigated and handled separately from civil cases, even if they concern the same incident. In a criminal case, DOJ brings a case against the accused person; in a civil case, DOJ brings the case (either through litigation or an administrative investigation) against a governmental authority or law enforcement agency. In a criminal case, the evidence must establish proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," while in civil cases the proof need only satisfy the lower standard of a "preponderance of the evidence." Finally, in criminal cases, DOJ seeks to punish a wrongdoer for past misconduct through imprisonment or other sanction. In civil cases, DOJ seeks to correct a law enforcement agency's policies and practices that fostered the misconduct and, where appropriate, may require individual relief for the victim(s). 

FEDERAL CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT 
It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). "Under color of law" means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, theft, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.  What remedies are available under these laws? These are criminal statutes. Violations of these laws are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. There is no private right of action under these statutes; in other words, these are not the legal provisions under which you would file a lawsuit on your own.

FEDERAL CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
"Police Misconduct Provision"
This law makes it unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (34 U.S.C. § 12601). The types of conduct covered by this law can include, among other things, excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, coercive sexual conduct, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests. In order to be covered by this law, the misconduct must constitute a "pattern or practice" -- it may not simply be an isolated incident. The DOJ must be able to show in court that the agency has an unlawful policy or that the incidents constituted a pattern of unlawful conduct. However, unlike the other civil laws discussed below, DOJ does not have to show that discrimination has occurred in order to prove a pattern or practice of misconduct. What remedies are available under this law? The remedies available under this law do not provide for individual monetary relief for the victims of the misconduct. Rather, they provide for injunctive relief, such as orders to end the misconduct and changes in the agency's policies and procedures that resulted in or allowed the misconduct. There is no private right of action under this law; only DOJ may file suit for violations of the Police Misconduct Provision. 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the "OJP Program Statute"
Together, these laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from DOJ. (42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. and 34 U.S.C. § 10228). These laws prohibit both individual instances and patterns or practices of discriminatory misconduct, i.e., treating a person differently because of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. The misconduct covered by Title VI and the OJP (Office of Justice Programs) Program Statute includes, for example, harassment or use of racial slurs, discriminatory arrests, discriminatory traffic stops, coercive sexual conduct, retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the investigation, discriminatory use of force, or refusal by the agency to respond to complaints alleging discriminatory treatment by its officers. What remedies are available under these laws? DOJ may seek changes in the policies and procedures of the agency to remedy violations of these laws and, if appropriate, also seek individual remedial relief for the victim(s). Individuals also have a private right of action in certain circumstances under Title VI and under the OJP Program Statute; in other words, you may file a lawsuit yourself under these laws. However, you must first exhaust your administrative remedies by filing a complaint with DOJ if you wish to file in Federal Court under the OJP Program Statute.


HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH DOJ
Criminal Enforcement
If you would like to file a complaint alleging a violation of the criminal laws discussed above, you may contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is responsible for investigating allegations of criminal deprivations of civil rights. You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) in your district. The FBI and USAOs have offices in most major cities and have publically-listed phone numbers.

You can find your local office here:

In addition, you may send a written complaint to:
Criminal Section 
Civil Rights Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., PHB 
Washington, D.C. 20530

Civil Enforcement
If you would like to file a complaint alleging violations of the Police Misconduct Statute, Title VI, or the OJP Program Statute, you may send a written complaint to: 
Federal Coordination and Compliance Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., NWB
Washington, D.C. 20530
Complaint forms, available in 12 languages, can be found at: https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/complaint-process

You may also call the Federal Coordination and Compliance Section's toll-free number for information and a complaint form, at (888) TITLE-06 (848-5306) (voice and TDD).


How do I file a complaint about the conduct of a law enforcement officer from a Federal agency?
If you believe that you are a victim of criminal misconduct by a Federal law enforcement officer (such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the FBI; Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Drug Enforcement Agency, United States Marshals Service, or the Border Patrol), you should follow the procedures discussed above concerning how to file a complaint alleging violations of the criminal laws we enforce. If you believe that you have been subjected by a Federal law enforcement officer to the type of misconduct discussed above concerning "Federal Civil Enforcement," you may send a complaint to the Federal Coordination and Compliance Section, at the address listed above. That office will forward your complaint to the appropriate agency and office.

What information should I include in a complaint to DOJ?
Your complaint, whether alleging violations of the criminal or civil laws listed in this document, should include the following information:
  • Your name, address, and telephone number(s).
  • The name(s) of the law enforcement agency (or agencies) involved.
  • A description of the conduct you believe violates one of the laws discussed above, with as many details as possible. You should include: the dates and times of incident(s); any injuries sustained; the name(s), or other identifying information, of the officer(s) involved (if possible); and any other examples of similar misconduct. 
  • The names and telephone numbers of witnesses who can support your allegations.
If you believe that the misconduct is based on your race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or disability, please identify the basis and explain what led you to believe that you were treated in a discriminatory manner (i.e., differently from persons of another race, sex, etc.).

Reproduction of this document is encouraged.
This flyer is not intended to be a final agency action, has no legally binding effect, and has no force or effect of law.  This document may be rescinded or modified in the Department’s complete discretion, in accordance with applicable laws.  This flyer does not establish legally enforceable rights or responsibilities beyond what is required by the terms of the applicable statutes, regulations, or binding judicial precedent.  For more information, see "Memorandum for All Components: Prohibition of Improper Guidance Documents," from Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III, November 16, 2017.

















SUMMARY:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.















Investigations and Prosecutions
About the Law Enforcement Misconduct Statute
Physical Assault
Sexual Misconduct
Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Condition or a Substantial Risk of Harm
Failure to Intervene

INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS
The Department of Justice ("The Department") vigorously investigates and, where the evidence permits, prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The Department's investigations most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. These cases typically involve police officers, jailers, correctional officers, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, and other federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. The Department's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, so long as he/she is acting, or claiming to act, in his/her official capacity.

In addition to Constitutional violations, the Department prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice. This includes attempting to prevent a victim or witnesses from reporting the misconduct, lying to federal, state, or local officials during the course of an investigation into the potential misconduct, writing a false report to conceal misconduct, or fabricating evidence.

The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys' Manual ("USAM"), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment.

First, the government must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. Second, the government must also conclude that the government would be likely to prevail at trial, where the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220.[1]
___________
[1] The USAM provides only internal Department of Justice guidance. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Nor are any limitations hereby placed on otherwise lawful litigative prerogatives of the Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution


ABOUT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT MISCONDUCT STATUTE
The federal criminal statute that enforces Constitutional limits on conduct by law enforcement officers is 18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242 provides in relevant part:
"Whoever, under color of any law, …willfully subjects any person…to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States [shall be guilty of a crime]."
Section 242 is intended to "protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication." Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 98 (1945) (quoting legislative history).

To prove a violation of § 242, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant deprived a victim of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) that the defendant acted willfully, and (3) that the defendant was acting under color of law. A violation of § 242 is a felony if one of the following conditions is met: the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use a dangerous weapon, explosive or fire; the victim suffered bodily injury; the defendant's actions included attempted murder, kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or the crime resulted in death. Otherwise, the violation is a misdemeanor.

Establishing the intent behind a Constitutional violation requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the law enforcement officer knew what he/she was doing was wrong and against the law and decided to do it anyway. Therefore, even if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual's Constitutional right was violated, § 242 requires that the government prove that the law enforcement officer intended to engage in the unlawful conduct and that he/she did so knowing that it was wrong or unlawful. See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101-107 (1945). Mistake, fear, misperception, or even poor judgment does not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute.

Physical Assault
In cases of physical assault, such as allegations of excessive force by an officer, the underlying Constitutional right at issue depends on the custodial status of the victim. If the victim has just been arrested or detained, or if the victim is being held in jail but has not yet been convicted, the government must, in most cases, prove that that the law enforcement officer used more force than is reasonably necessary to arrest or gain control of the victim. This is an objective standard dependent on what a reasonable officer would do under the same circumstances. "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989).

If the victim is a convicted prisoner, the government must show that the law enforcement officer used physical force to punish , retaliate against, an inmate, or otherwise cause harm to the prisoner, rather than to protect the officer or others from harm or to maintain order in the facility. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986)

Sexual Misconduct
Law enforcement officers who engage in nonconsensual sexual contact with persons in their custody deprive those persons of liberty without due process of law, which includes the right to bodily integrity. The Department investigates and prosecutes instances of nonconsensual sexual misconduct committed by patrol officers, federal and state probation officers, wardens, and corrections officers, among others. Sexual misconduct includes, but is not limited to, sexual assault without consent (rape), sexual contact procured by force, threat of force or coercion, and unwanted or gratuitous sexual contact such as touching or groping.

To prove that a law enforcement officer violated a victim's right to bodily integrity, the government must prove that the victim did not consent to the defendant's actions. Prosecutors can establish lack of consent or submission by showing that the defendant officer used either force or coercion to overcome the victim's will. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant used actual violence against the victim. Coercion may exist if a victim is told that an officer will bring false charges or cause the victim to suffer unjust punishment.

Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Condition or a Substantial Risk of Harm
Section 242 prohibits a law enforcement officer from acting with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm to persons in custody. Therefore, an officer cannot deliberately ignore a serious medical condition of or risk of serious harm (such as a risk that an inmate will be assaulted by other inmates or officers) to a person in custody.  To prove deliberate indifference, the government must prove that the victim faced a substantial risk of serious harm; that the officer had actual knowledge of the risk of harm; and that the officer failed to take reasonable measures to abate it.

Failure to Intervene
An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim's Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so. This charge is often appropriate for supervisory officers who observe uses of excessive force without stopping them, or who actively encourage uses of excessive force but do not directly participate in them.

















This statute makes it unlawful to willfully cause bodily injury—or attempting to do so with fire, firearm, or other dangerous weapon—when 1) the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin of any person, or 2) the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person and the crime affected interstate or foreign commerce or occurred within federal special maritime and territorial jurisdiction.

The law also provides funding and technical assistance to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to help them to more effectively investigate, prosecute, and prevent hate crimes.

The law provides for a maximum 10–year prison term, unless death (or attempts to kill) results from the offense, or unless the offense includes kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, or aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse. For offenses not resulting in death, there is a seven–year statute of limitations. For offenses resulting in death, there is no statute of limitations.

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:
  • A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;
  • a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
  • an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;
  • a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and
  • a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:
  • A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public college;
  • a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;
  • an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;
  • a juror or prospective juror in state court;
  • a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or
  • a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters...or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises.

3) Prohibits interference by force or threat of force against any person because he/she is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or class of persons from participating or affording others the opportunity or protection to so participate, or lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed in items (1) and (2), above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life or may be sentenced to death.

Prohibits (1) intentional defacement, damage, or destruction of any religious real property, because of the religious, racial, or ethnic characteristics of that property, or (2) intentional obstruction by force or threat of force, or attempts to obstruct any person in the enjoyment of that person's free exercise of religious beliefs. If the intent of the crime is motivated for reasons of religious animosity, it must be proven that the religious real property has a sufficient connection with interstate or foreign commerce. However, if the intent of the crime is racially motivated, there is no requirement to satisfy the interstate or foreign commerce clause.

Punishment varies from one year imprisonment and a fine or both, and if bodily injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this section, and the violation is by means of fire or an explosive, a fine under this title or imprisonment of not more than forty years or both; or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined in accordance with this title and imprisonment for up to twenty years, or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined in accordance with this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

This statute prohibits (1) the use of force or threat of force or physical obstruction, to intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person or any class of persons from obtaining or providing reproductive health services; (2) the use of force or threat of force or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or (3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship. This statute does not apply to speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Non obstructive demonstrations are legal.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be up to six months, or both, for the first offense: and the fine shall, notwithstanding section 3571, be up to $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; and if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be up to ten years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life.

Whoever (1) uses fire or an explosive to commit any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, or (2) carries an explosive during the commission of any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, including a felony which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years but not more than 15 years. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, such persons shall be sentenced to imprisonment for ten years but not more than 25 years.

This statute makes it unlawful for any individual(s), by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with (or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with), any person's housing rights because of that person's race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are:
  • The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling;
  • the occupation of a dwelling;
  • the financing of a dwelling;
  • contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above;
  • applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings.

This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights.

Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

This civil statute was a provision within the Crime Control Act of 1994 and makes it unlawful for any governmental authority, or agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.



Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.

Types of misconduct covered include, among other things:
  • Excessive Force
  • Discriminatory Harassment
  • False Arrest
  • Coercive Sexual Conduct
  • Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests

Saturday, July 4, 2020

07042020 - Officer Anwar Khan - Arrested for domestic violence - Warren PD






Warren Police officer's ex-wife claims jealously at center of off-duty assault.
"I think he had a feeling I was with somebody and he just can't handle it," Melissa Khan said about her ex-husband Anwar Khan who is accused of assaulting Melissa and a male friend of hers.









Charges against Warren officer Khan delayed
Macomb Daily 
Jul 6, 2020

Formal charges against a Warren police officer who was arrested over the weekend were delayed Monday.

Anwar Mohommed Khan, 48, was scheduled to be arraigned Monday in 42nd District Court in Romeo but those proceedings were put on hold when prosecutors asked for more information
from sheriff's office investigators.

Records showed over the weekend he was being detained in the Macomb County Jail in Mount Clemens on a charge of assault with a dangerous weapon after being arrested on July 4.

Reached Sunday night, Warren Police Commissioner William Dwyer declined to comment on the allegation.

Macomb County Circuit Court records show Khan filed for divorce from his former wife, Melissa, in June 2019. He filed for interim custody and parenting time of the couple's children along with the divorce papers. Judge Rachel Rancilio approved the divorce in January of this year.

On Monday, as the arraignment was supposed to begin, Judge Denis LeDuc at the request of prosecutors instead entered a $10,000 interim bond with stipulations that include no criminal
charges, aggressive behavior or contact with potentially witnesses or his former wife by Khan, court representatives confirmed Monday afternoon. As of late afternoon Monday, the prosecutor's office had not sent over revised arraignment paperwork and a representative there refused comment on the case.

It was unclear if Khan had posted bond late Monday afternoon though records showed him as being housed at the county jail on Elizabeth Road in Mount Clemens.

His attorney, John Dakmak of Detroit-based Clark Hill, said he was unsure Monday evening if charges will be filed. However, he said if they are authorized "we are not even considering any plea negotiations."

Dakmak stated the incident that led to the weekend arrest happened when Khan's ex-wife arrived at his house to visit the couple's children.

"She typically only gets supervised visitation at Phoenix House due to mental conditions made worse by drug and alcohol use," he said. "She asked to see the kids after not seeing them for months and almost from the minute she arrived things got bad."

Khan was also involved in an incident with a former Warren police commander who was accused of threatening a potential witness in a criminal case and was also one of several defendants named in a federal lawsuit filed by DeSheila Howlett, an African-American former police officer who sued the city, police department and some officers alleging she was the victim of racial and gender discrimination, and harassment between 2006 and 2016 because the city did not require diversity training for her fellow officers.

In one of her claims, Howlett said Khan, who was a field training officer at the time, told her that women do not have a right to work or be police officers.

Court records show she further alleged that Khan had said: "America was better off prior to 1940, 1941, when all the men went off to war and then the women started working jobs, and basically, our society declined due to the women entering the workforce, so now there's nobody to tend to the children."

The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.












Warren police officer jailed on assault charge
Macomb Daily 
July 6, 2020

A Warren police officer spent Sunday behind bars after he was arrested in northern Macomb County for an alleged assault, possibly involving his former wife, according to police and jail
records.

Anwar Mohommed Khan was being held in the Macomb County Jail in Mount Clemens on a charge of assault with a dangerous weapon, jail records show. He was arrested Saturday, the Fourth of July, according to the records.

Khan, 48, is scheduled to be arraigned Monday in 42nd District Court in Romeo.

Macomb County Sheriff Anthony Wickersham on Sunday evening confirmed the arrest but would not provide any further details of the incident the officer is alleged to have been involved in until he is formally charged in court.

"We do have a Warren police officer in the jail," Wickersham said, without naming Khan.

Wickersham said the case would be reviewed Monday morning by the Macomb County Prosecutor's Office to determine whether the officer will be charged.

Reached Sunday night, Warren Police Commissioner William Dwyer declined to comment on the allegation.

Macomb County Circuit Court records show Khan filed for divorce from his former wife, Melissa, in June 2019. He filed for interim custody and parenting time of the couple's children along with the divorce papers. Judge Rachel Rancilio approved the divorce in January of this year.

Khan was also involved in an incident involving a former Warren police commander who was accused of threatening a potential witness in a criminal case.

Arthur Gill was accused of assaulting Carlton Torres while on duty and then retaliating against another officer -- Khan -- who witnessed the incident by filing a false police report with state Child Protective Services.

That case dates back to January 2014 when Gill and other officers responded to a call about shots being fired from a home on Chalmers Avenue, near Nine Mile and Hoover roads. Gill is accused of punching Torres in the chest “without warning, provocation or justification,” according to a federal lawsuit filed by Torres against Gill.

Torres fell and hit his head on the cement porch. Gill grabbed him by the neck, handcuffed and arrested him, according to the lawsuit. The county Prosecutor's Office refused to issue any charges against Torres.

Torres says Gill lied on a police report by saying that Torres “swatted my right hand from him” before striking Torres in the chest, according to the lawsuit. Torres' version was backed by Khan, who was at the scene. Prosecutors allege Gill retaliated against Khan by making a child abuse complaint against him to Child Protective Services.

Torres' lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed in 2015, according to court records.

Khan was also one of several defendants named in a federal lawsuit filed by DeSheila Howlett, an African-American former police officer who sued the city, police department and some officers alleging she was the victim of racial and gender discrimination, and harassment between 2006 and 2016 because the city did not require diversity training for her fellow officers.

In one of her claims, Howlett said Khan, who was a field training officer at the time, told her that women do not have a right to work or be police officers.

Court records show she further alleged that Khan had said: "America was better off prior to 1940, 1941, when all the men went off to war and then the women started working jobs, and basically, our society declined due to the women entering the workforce, so now there's nobody to tend to the children."

The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
























Off-duty Warren police officer charged in assaults in Washington Township
Detroit Free Press
July 10, 2020

An off-duty Warren police officer is facing four charges after he was arrested for allegedly assaulting two people in Washington Township on the Fourth of July, the Macomb County Sheriff's Office said Friday.

Anwar Khan is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon, a felony; two misdemeanor domestic violence charges, and refusing to provide a DNA sample, a misdemeanor.

He was arraigned Friday in 42nd District Court in Romeo and was given a $10,000 personal bond. He is to have no contact with the victim and no additional criminal charges, according to the court.

The arraignment before Judge Denis LeDuc was held via Zoom because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Khan's next court dates are July 21 and July 28.

"We will be mounting a vigorous defense of this case," said Khan's attorney, John Dakmak.

Off-duty Warren Police Officer Anwar Khan is facing four charges in an assault in Washington Township on July 4.
Warren Police Commissioner Bill Dwyer said Khan is a 20-year veteran of the force "with an excellent work record." He said he put Khan on unpaid administrative leave Thursday.

Dwyer said Khan was on paid administrative leave starting July 5, but was put on unpaid administrative leave once the warrant was issued, which Dwyer said is protocol.

"Officer Khan is entitled to due process, meaning fair treatment through  the normal judicial system as any citizens would be afforded," Dwyer said. "I will make no other comments until his due process has been exercised."

Deputies were sent to a residence about 10:45 a.m. July 4 on a domestic violence complaint. They met with the caller, who said she saw Khan assaulting a male and then a female, the Sheriff's Office said in a release.

She said she had been in a wooded area near the residence with two males. Khan entered the woods and began assaulting one of the males, while the other ran away. The assaulted male escaped and left the area, according to the release.

Khan returned to the residence with the caller and began assaulting a female who had been sleeping, the Sheriff's Office said. Then, Khan threatened to assault the caller. She called 911 and deputies arrived, the release stated.

Deputies located the male victim, who said Khan assaulted him  and  then pointed a gun at him. No shots were fired.

Khan was taken into custody and his weapons were confiscated, the Sheriff's Office said. He was held at the county jail, where he refused to provide a DNA sample upon arrest for a felony offense.

The victims received medical evaluations and were released at the scene.

Sheriff's Sgt. Renee Yax said Friday that no additional details about the incident were being released.












Warren Police officer's ex-wife claims jealously at center of off-duty assault
WXYZ News
Jul 10, 2020 





WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, Mich. (WXYZ) — "I think he had a feeling I was with somebody and he just can't handle it," Melissa Khan said about her ex-husband Anwar Khan who is accused of assaulting Melissa and a male friend of hers.

Anwar Khan, 48, is a 20 year veteran of the Warren Police Department, but he was off-duty at his home in Washington Township on July 4 when his 16-year-old daughter called 911.

Melissa said she had been staying at her ex-husband's home for several days last week to visit their children.

She told 7 Action News that Anwar had been granted custody of their three children, ages six, nine, and sixteen because she was in jail on an alcohol-related case and missed court hearings.

Around 10:45 Saturday morning, Anwar Khan went outside and allegedly confronted his teenage daughter and her boyfriend who were sitting near a creek.

The teen's boyfriend ran off but investigators said it's alleged that Anwar then began to assault Melissa's male friend who had been napping nearby.

"He had a mission," Melissa said about her ex, and the moment her friend said he attacked him. "He was sleeping on his back, literally, on his back on the ground and he just started pummeling him in his face."

Anwar allegedly threatened the man with his firearm before returning to the house where Melissa said she'd been sleeping.

"(He) just ripped me out of my bed, screaming and told me he (expletive) my N-word boyfriend up," she said.

That's when the couple's teenage daughter called 911.

On Friday, Anwar Khan was arraigned on multiple charges including misdemeanor Domestic Violence and felony Assault with a Dangerous Weapon.

He was given a $10,000 personal bond and ordered to stay away from his daughter, his ex-wife and her friend.

"He's not going anywhere," Khan's defense attorney John Dakmak told the judge during his client's arraignment. "We are fighting these allegations. We have had no discussions of a plea at this point. We're prepared to counter any evidence presented by the people in this case."

Anwar Khan is now on unpaid leave with the Warren Police Department.

Warren Police Commissioner William Dwyer said Officer Khan has an excellent work record and is entitled to due process.












Off-duty Warren cop suspended as he faces domestic violence charges
Detroit News
July 10, 2020
Washington Township — A Warren police officer faces four charges, one of them a felony, for an alleged domestic violence incident at his Washington Township home on the Fourth of July.

The Macomb County Sheriff's Office is investigating the incident, and says that at about 10:45 a.m. Saturday police were dispatched to the home of Anwar Khan on a domestic violence complaint.

Police at the scene spoke to the witness who called 911, who said she was in the woods with two males when Khan, a Warren police officer who was off-duty, assaulted one of the males. 

The caller alleged that Khan "entered the woods and began assaulting one of the males while the second male ran away," the sheriff's office said in a statement. The man being assaulted eventually escaped, she said.

But she returned with Khan to the residence and he allegedly started assaulting a sleeping woman. Then, the caller alleges, he threatened her, too.

Police tracked down the male victim, who said the suspect had assaulted him and held him at gunpoint. 

Police arrested Khan and confiscated his weapons, but say that when he arrived at the Macomb County Jail, he allegedly refused to provide a DNA mouth swab sample at intake for identification purposes, as required after a felony arrest. 

The male and female were checked out by medics, and didn't need further medical attention, the sheriff's office said.

Khan faces four charges: Assault with a dangerous weapon, a felony; two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence; and refusing to provide a DNA sample, a misdemeanor.

Khan is out on a personal bond of $10,000, but has a hearing Friday morning at 42-1 District Court in Romeo. 

Bill Dwyer, commissioner of the Warren Police Department, said Khan is a 20-year veteran of the force. He was placed on paid administrative leave after the arrest, and is now on unpaid leave since charges have been filed.

Dwyer said that "Officer Khan is entitled to due process and fair treatment through the judicial system," and said he could have no further comment until the matter is decided in court.












Off-duty Warren cop faces domestic violence charges
Detroit News
Jul 10, 2020

Washington Township — A Warren police officer faces four charges, one of them a felony, for an alleged domestic violence incident at his Washington Township home on the Fourth of July.

The Macomb County Sheriff's Office is investigating the incident, and says that at about 10:45 a.m. Saturday police were dispatched to the home of Anwar Khan on a domestic violence complaint.

Police at the scene spoke to the witness who called 911, who said she was in the woods with two males when Khan, a Warren police officer who was off-duty, assaulted one of the males. 

The caller alleged that Khan "entered the woods and began assaulting one of the males while the second male ran away," the sheriff's office said in a statement. The man being assaulted eventually escaped, she said.

But she returned with Khan to the residence and he allegedly started assaulting a sleeping woman. Then, the caller alleges, he threatened her, too.

Police tracked down the male victim, who said the suspect had assaulted him and held him at gunpoint. 

Police arrested Khan and confiscated his weapons, but say that when he arrived at the Macomb County Jail, he allegedly refused to provide a DNA mouth swab sample at intake for identification purposes, as required after a felony arrest. 

The male and female were checked out by medics, and didn't need further medical attention, the sheriff's office said.

Khan faces four charges: Assault with a dangerous weapon, a felony; two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence; and refusing to provide a DNA sample, a misdemeanor.

Khan is out on a personal bond of $10,000, but has a hearing Friday morning at 42-1 District Court in Romeo. 

Bill Dwyer, commissioner of the Warren Police Department, said Khan is a 20-year veteran of the force. He was placed on paid administrative leave after the arrest, and is now on unpaid leave since charges have been filed.

Dwyer said that "Officer Khan is entitled to due process and fair treatment through the judicial system," and said he could have no further comment until the matter is decided in court.












Warren police officer charged with three assault charges for off-duty incident in Washington Township
Macomb Daily
Jul 10, 2020


A Warren police officer was formally charged Friday with assaulting two people, including pointing a gun at one of them, on the Fourth of July at his Washington Township residence.

Anwar Khan, 48, who was off duty when he allegedly committed the acts, was arraigned on charges of assault with a dangerous weapon, a four-year felony, two counts of domestic assault, a misdemeanor, and refusal to provide a DNA sample, a misdemeanor, according to Macomb County Sheriff’s officials.

The arraignment was held in front of Judge Denis LeDuc of 42-I District Court in Romeo.

Warren Police Commissioner Bill Dwyer said Friday he followed protocol and placed Khan on paid administrative leave Monday and unpaid leave Thursday after the warrants were approved.

Dwyer said Khan has been "an excellent officer" in his 20 years on the force.

"Officer Khan is entitled to due process, meaning fair treatment through the judicial system," Dwyer said, declining further comment.

Khan allegedly assaulted one of two males who were in a wooded area outside his residence about 10:45 a.m. Saturday as one of the males fled on foot, authorities said. Khan then assaulted his ex-wife, who was sleeping inside the residence, and threatened a second female, prosecutors allege. The ex-wife called 911.

The male victim told deputies Khan assaulted and pointed a gun at him. No one was injured. The two victims were checked medically at the scene, officials said.

At the Macomb County Jail, Khan refused to provide DNA for the felony charge. Friday, a $10,000 personal bond set Monday was continued by LeDuc.

Khan is scheduled for a July 21 probable-cause conference and July 28 preliminary examination.

Khan filed for divorce from his ex-wife, Melissa, in June 2019. He filed for interim custody and parenting time of the couple's children as part of the divorce, which Macomb Circuit Court Judge Rachel Rancilio approved in January.

Khan was involved in a 2014 incident involving a former Warren police commander who was accused of threatening a potential witness in a criminal case. He witnessed the incident, and was retaliated against by the commander, who filed a false complaint against Khan with Child Protective Services.

He was also one of several defendants named in a federal lawsuit filed by DeSheila Howlett, an African-American former police officer who sued the city, police department and some officers alleging she was the victim of racial and gender discrimination, and harassment between 2006 and 2016 because the city did not require diversity training for her fellow officers. The lawsuit is pending.












Off-duty Warren cop faces domestic violence charges - Officer free on bond, off on leave amid assault allegations
Detroit News
July 11, 2020  
Washington Township – A Warren police officer faces four charges, one of them a felony, for an alleged domestic violence incident at his Washington Township home on the Fourth of July.

The Macomb County Sheriff's Office is investigating the incident, and says that at about 10:45 a.m. Saturday police were dispatched to the home of Anwar Khan on a domestic violence complaint.

Police at the scene spoke to the witness who called 911, who said she was in the woods with two males when Khan, a Warren police officer who was off-duty, assaulted one of the males.

The caller alleged that Khan "entered the woods and began assaulting one of the males while the second male ran away," the sheriff's office said in a statement. The man being assaulted eventually escaped, she said.

But she returned with Khan to the residence and he allegedly started assaulting a sleeping woman. Then, the caller alleges, he threatened her, too.

Police tracked down the male victim, who said the suspect had assaulted him and held him at gunpoint.

Police arrested Khan and confiscated his weapons, but say that when he arrived at the Macomb County Jail, he allegedly refused to provide a DNA mouth swab sample at intake for identification purposes, as required after a felony arrest.

The male and female were checked out by medics, and didn't need further medical attention, the sheriff's office said.

Khan faces four charges: Assault with a dangerous weapon, a felony; two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence; and refusing to provide a DNA sample, a misdemeanor.

Khan is out on a personal bond of $10,000, but has a hearing Friday morning at 42-1 District Court in Romeo.

Bill Dwyer, commissioner of the Warren Police Department, said Khan is a 20-year veteran of the force.

He was placed on paid administrative leave after the arrest, and is now on unpaid leave since charges have been filed.

Dwyer said that "Officer Khan is entitled to due process and fair treatment through the judicial system," and said he could have no further comment until the matter is decided in court.












Felony assault charge dropped against suspended Warren police officer
Macomb Daily
Aug 12, 2020

A felony charge was dismissed from the criminal case against a suspended Warren police officer who still faces four misdemeanors for a recent incident at his Washington Township home.

Judge Denis LeDuc of 42 Court in Romeo on Wednesday dismissed a charge of assault with a dangerous weapon against Anwar Khan, 48, who was accused of pointing a gun at his ex-wife’s boyfriend, Stephen Wright. The incident occurred during an altercation July 4 outside of Khan’s Washington Township home.

The dismissal came following a preliminary examination for the lone felony charge against Khan. 

“The judge said he found the complaining witness’s testimony not credible,” said Khan’s attorney, John Dakmak. “There was conflicting statements about how the gun was use and the type of gun used.”

Wright gave two statements to police prior to his testimony.

The hearing was held remotely by video.

The assistant Macomb County prosecutor handling the case could not be immediately reached for comment Wednesday.

Wright claimed Khan punched and pointed a gun at him that morning after he went outside to find his teenage daughter in a wooded area with Wright and another man.

Khan denies he had a gun when he went to confront Wright and the second man, who ran away, Dakmak said.

LeDuc agreed to add a misdemeanor assault-and-battery charge against Khan for the alleged punch. Khan still faces two domestic assault charges for allegedly assaulting his wife and daughter around the same time. He also faces a misdemeanor for refusing to provide a DNA sample.

A pretrial in the case is set for Sept. 15.

Khan’s divorce from his wife, Melissa, was finalized in January, and he has custody of their three children, Dakmak said. Khan’s wife typically lives separately but was staying there for the weekend to visit her children, he said.

Khan, a 20-year police veteran, is on unpaid administrative leave from the Warren Police Department, Dakmak added.















****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************



Judge: No separate trials for accused Warren ex-cop
Nov 13, 2014
https://www.macombdaily.com/news/nation-world-news/judge-no-separate-trials-for-accused-warren-ex-cop/article_619788c3-0ce7-5d24-9c13-81221140aede.html

A fired Warren police commander will not get separate jury trials on charges of assaulting a man and retaliating two months later against a fellow officer who reported the alleged confrontation, a judge ruled Thursday.

Former patrol sergeant Arthur Gill's lawyer, however, plans to appeal 37th District Judge Matthew Sabaugh's decision.

'We believe that due process requires Art Gill to have separate trials,' defense attorney Steven Kaplan said. 'We were hopeful that the judge would grant him separate trials for the two different alleged incidents. We believe the Circuit Court is likely to grant our relief.'

Gill faces three misdemeanor charges: assault or assault and battery; false report of a misdemeanor; and intentional filing of a false report of child abuse. Each offense is punishable by up to 93 days in jail.

The charges are rooted in a January 2014 incident when Gill and other officers responded to a call about shots being fired from a home on Chalmers Avenue, near Nine Mile and Hoover roads.

Gill ordered Carlton Torres from the home to the porch where he 'asked Mr. Torres something about some dogs,' according to a lawsuit filed against Gill by Torres. 'Then without warning, provocation or justification, Gill slugged Mr. Torres in the chest with his fist,' the lawsuit states.

Torres fell and hit his head on the cement porch. Gill grabbed him by the neck, handcuffed and arrested him, according to the lawsuit. After reviewing police reports, the Macomb County Prosecutor's Office refused to issue any charges against Torres for the incident.

Torres says Gill lied on a police report by saying that Torres 'swatted my right hand from him' before striking Torres in the chest, according to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit.

Torres' version was backed by Warren police officer Anwar Khan, who was at the scene.

Prosecutors allege Gill retaliated against Khan by making a child abuse complaint against the officer to Child Protective Services.

Kaplan believes evidence would be prejudicial if applied by one jury weighing Gill's fate on all three counts.

Gill, a 16-year veteran of the Warren Police Department, was a sergeant for four years when Police Commissioner Jere Green fired him in April.

Gill has told The Macomb Daily the charges are 'retribution' for complaints he has made in the Warren Police Department over the years.

A Circuit Court decision on whether Gill should receive separate trials may not come for another 90 days, Kaplan said. Another hearing in district court is expected to be held before then. A jury trial is scheduled for March 16, 2015.

The charges are a blemish on his Gill's reputation, said Kaplan, a former assistant Macomb County prosecutor.

'He does miss police work,' Kaplan said. 'He was a successful command officer. He wishes to
return to his vocation.' Gill's wife also works as a Warren police officer. She returned to work last week after giving birth eight weeks ago, Kaplan said.

Torres' civil lawsuit accuses Gill of excessive force, unlawful arrest and assault. He claims he
suffered scrapes and bruises, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, humiliation, outrage,
and also indignity of being arrested and incarcerated for something he did not commit.












Former Warren cop jailed for allegedly threatening psychologist
Macomb Daily 
Jun 14, 2019

A former Warren police commander is being held in jail in lieu of a $1 million bond accused of threatening a potential witness in his criminal case, according to a media report.

Arthur Gill, 54, was jailed Wednesday by a St. Clair Shores judge in connection with his criminal case in which he is accused of assaulting a man while working as a Warren cop and retaliating against a fellow officer who witnessed the incident by making false report with state Child Protective Services.

Gill’s criminal case dates to 2014, and the case at one point was transferred to 40th District Court in St. Clair Shores.

Last weekend, Gill showed up at a psychologist's office in Birmingham and threatened the doctor, who is set to testify in his case, according to the report aired by WJBK-TV (Fox 2). Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith, who has yet to respond to inquiries from The Macomb Daily about the case, said in the report also found on the TV news station's website that Gill told the psychologist, "Your reputation is going to be ruined" and "nothing good is going to come out of this.”

Gill appeared in district court for intimidating witnesses and violating his bond, which was reset at $1 million.

The case dates back to January 2014 incident when Gill and other officers responded to a call about shots being fired from a home on Chalmers Avenue, near Nine Mile and Hoover roads. Gill is accused of punching Carlton Torres in the chest “without warning, provocation or justification,” according to a federal lawsuit by Torres.

Torres fell and hit his head on the cement porch. Gill grabbed him by the neck, handcuffed and arrested him, according to the lawsuit. The county Prosecutor's Office refused to issue any charges against Torres.

Torres says Gill lied on a police report by saying that Torres “swatted my right hand from him” before striking Torres in the chest, according to the lawsuit. Torres' version was backed by Warren police officer Anwar Khan, who was at the scene. Prosecutors allege Gill retaliated against Khan by making a child abuse complaint against him to Child Protective Services.

Torres' lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed in 2015, according to court records.

Gill is charged with assault and battery, filing a false police report and filing a false report of child abuse, all misdemeanors. His trial was scheduled to start Monday but will be delayed, the report says.

Gill, a 16-year veteran of the Warren Police Department, was a sergeant for four years when then-police commissioner Jere Green fired him in April 2014.

Gill has told The Macomb Daily the charges are “retribution” for complaints he has made in the Warren Police Department over the years.






****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************