06282004 - Deputy Ivan James Morris - Muskegon County SD

On June 28, 2004, Muskegon County Sheriff Deputy Ivan James Morris assaulted his ex-girlfriend. According to reports the 6' 3", 280 pound sheriff deputy threw a drink at the 5' 2", 125 pound woman's head,; grabbed her by the neck; and then pushed her to the ground. Both the victim and an eye witness told the police, that during the attack,  Morris yelled that he was going to kill her.  Deputy Morris was arrested and charged with misdemeanor domestic violence.

The victim was granted a personal protective order immediately following Deputy Morris' release from jail. However, Deputy Morris filed a petition to have the PPO terminated.

During the non-jury trial in November, Deputy Morris claimed that the victim attacked him. Morris testified that he grabbed his ex-girlfriend's arm and "threw her down"...but that he did so to protect himself. "She was going to hit me...To keep a person off me, that what I would do to anyone." 

The Judge obviously did not believe Deputy Morris' claim that he acted in self-defense, as he found Morris guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Muskegon County Sheriff George Jerkas did not dismiss Deputy Morris from the Sheriff Department for: 1] The false testimony he gave during trial regarding a crime he committed; or 2] for the domestic violence assault.

As of 2012, Deputy Ivan James Morris was still employed at the Muskegon County Sheriff Department.













Sheriff's Deputy convicted on domestic violence charge
A Muskegon County jail guard has been convicted of misdemeanordomestic violence.
November 17, 2004
By John S. Hausman
Muskegon Chronicle, MI
http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1100708127304840.xml

After a non jury trial Tuesday, Chief 60th District Judge Andrew J. Wierengo III found Sheriff's Deputy Ivan James Morris, 37, of 6389 Evanston guilty as charged of assault and battery/domestic violence, first offense.

Wierengo ordered a domestic violence assessment and scheduled sentencing for Dec. 28. The maximum possible sentence is 93 days in jail.

The case stemmed from a June 28 incident between the off-duty Morris and his 39-year-old ex-girlfriend during Muskegon Summer Celebration in the crowded Mike's Bar, 555 W. Western.

Witness testimony conflicted at Morris' trial, but by all accounts an angry confrontation between the two ended with Morris pushing or throwing the woman to the floor of the bar.

Prosecution witnesses called it an unprovoked assault that started with Morris throwing his drink on the back of the woman's head, then grabbing her by the neck and swinging her onto the floor.

Morris, on the other hand, testified he acted in self-defense. He said his drink spilled accidentally on the woman when his arm was jostled in the crowd while he was carrying it across the room. He said she then threw several drinks she was carrying at him, then started to swing her fist at him. He testified he grabbed her arm and "threw her down" to defend himself, causing her to fall. "She was going to hit me. ... To keep a person off me, that's what I would do to anybody," Morris testified.

No one testified to any visible injuries on the victim.

The judge said that even if he believed most of Morris' account, the deputy still overreacted and of assault. Wierengo noted the difference in size of the two people: Morris told the judge he is approximately 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighs 280 pounds and the woman is 5 feet 3 inches tall and weighs 120 pounds. "It was a force that seemed to me disproportionate to the situation," Wierengo said.

Afterward, Sheriff George Jurkas suspended Morris from his job as a jail guard for five days without pay. "It's unfortunate," Jurkas said of the situation. "Hopefully he'll put it behind him, and it won't happen again."

The sheriff said the discipline would have been more severe had the victim suffered injuries. Jurkas also noted that Morris, unlike road-patrol deputies, does not carry a firearm in the course of his job, meaning a misdemeanor conviction won't render him unable to do his work.was guilty













Sheriff's Deputy Ivan James Morris faces domestic violence charge
Friday, July 09, 2004
By John S. Hausman
CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER
Muskegon Chronicle, MI
http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1089386122149320.xml

A Muskegon County jail guard has been charged with domestic violence for allegedly throwing a drink at his ex-girlfriend's head, then grabbing her around the neck and pushing her, in a crowded Western Avenue bar last week during Muskegon Summer Celebration.

Sheriff's Deputy Ivan James Morris, 37, of 6389 Evanston was arraigned June 29 on the 93-day misdemeanor in front of visiting 60th District Judge Richard J. Pasarela, who set a $500 cash or surety bond. According to court records, Morris posted the bond June 30 and was released from the Ottawa County Jail, where he was transported after his arrest early June 29. Under the conditions of his bond, Morris was required to surrender all firearms to the Muskegon Police Department, to avoid contact with the alleged victim, her Burton Street residence and her place of employment, and to avoid alcohol and drugs. A pretrial conference was scheduled for 3 p.m. July 19 before 60th District Magistrate John Wiewiora.

The 39-year-old woman obtained a personal protection order the day of Morris' release, granted by Muskegon County Probate Judge Neil G. Mullally, also requiring Morris to stay away from her. According to court records, Morris filed a motion seeking termination of the order, and a hearing on that motion was scheduled for 11:15 a.m. July 16.

Sheriff George Jurkas said Morris will continue working as a corrections officer pending the outcome of the case. The sheriff said he made that decision on the advice of the county's human resources department. "Any type of disciplinary action will be taken afterthe case has gone through the judicial system," Jurkas said.

Jurkas said any discipline, if Morris is convicted, would have to follow rules spelled out in the county's labor contract with Teamsters Local 214, which represents the jail's corrections officers. Discipline could include suspension or termination, but firing would not be automatic. A misdemeanor conviction, unlike a felony record, does not bar a person from working as a deputy or police officer.

Because Morris is classified as a corrections officer-- not a law-enforcement officer, as road patrol deputies are classified -- his bond restrictions do not prevent him from doing his job, Jurkas said. Corrections deputies do not carry guns as part of their regular jail duties, and Morris will not do prisoner transports outside the jail while the firearmban continues, Jurkas said. The incident happened shortly before 11 p.m. the night of June 28 in Mike's Bar, 555 W. Western. The bar was crowded, with the festival under way across the street. A Muskegon police officer went to the bar after someone anonymously called 911 at 10:59 p.m. reporting a large number of people fighting.

According to a Muskegon police report in Morris' district court file, Morris was no longer in the bar when the Muskegon officer arrived. Four eyewitnesses-- the bar manager, two bartenders and a friend of the alleged victim -- told the officer that they saw the deputy enter the bar and push through a group of people to get at his ex-girlfriend, who was sitting at the bar with her back to him.

The eyewitnesses and the alleged victim said Morris then threw a drink at the back of her head. When she turned toward him, the 6-foot-3-inch, 270-pound deputy allegedly swore and yelled at the 5-foot-3-inch, 125-pound woman, "telling her that he was going to kill her," she told the Muskegon officer. While yelling, Morris allegedly grabbed her around the neck. The woman said she began to kick at him to defend herself, and he then allegedly began to push her backward while continuing to hold her neck. Other people in the bar then jumped on Morris and pulled him off and eventually kicked him out of thebar, several witnesses said.

The woman told police the two had dated for a short time, and that Morris "consistently harasses her by looking in her windows and following her around." She attributed it to his jealousy, claiming he had told her in the past that if he ever caught her with another man he would kill her.

A few minutes after 11 p.m., Morris called 911 from his cell phone, claiming the woman had assaulted him.

In a later interview, Morris told the officer he walked into the bar, saw his ex-girlfriend, walked past her and accidentally bumped arms with her, causing his drink to spill on her. He said she then "came up on me," causing him to grab her and push her away in self-defense. He said he felt threatened by her and that she had slapped him in the past. A friend of Morris' also told the investigating officer that he had seen the woman swinging her fists at Morris. Confronted with the other witnesses' reports of what happened, Morris replied that it was "possible" that he threw his drink at her but that he didn't remember it that way, adding that if that was what the witnesses said, "it must be what happened."

The Muskegon officer then arrested Morris, brought him to the police department's basement and made arrangements with sheriff's department command to book him. At Morris' request, he was given a breath test for alcohol, which showed a blood level of 0.061 percent, below the 0.08 percent level that's considered too intoxicated to drive legally.

The officer then took Morris to the Muskegon County Jail. A command officer told the Muskegon officer that the deputy would be transported to the Ottawa County Jail for lodging.

06262004 - Officer Christopher Kennedy - Detroit PD

On June 26, 2004, Detroit Police Officer Christopher Kennedy forced his girlfriend into his car during an altercation.

Officer Kennedy drove around Detroit with his victim....and then drove towards the  Metro Airport. While driving, Kennedy repeatedly struck his girlfriend.....

...Officer Kennedy drove at a high rate of speed....was weaving in and out of traffic....and then lost control of his vehicle on Interstate 94.

Officer Christopher Kennedy was not charged with kidnapping. He was only charged with misdemeanor aggravated assaulted. On July 21, 2004, Officer Kennedy pled no-contest to the charge and was sentenced to probation and ordered to have no contact with the victim.

ALSO SEE:

DETROIT POLICE OFFICER CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY: VIOLATION OF PROBATION. AUGUST 12, 2004

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2004/08/officer-christopher-kennedy-detroit-pd.html

BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS
Minutes of the Regular Board of Police Commissioners Meeting
Thursday, August 19, 2004
The regular meeting of the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners was held on Thursday, August 19, 2004, at 3:00 p.m., at Police Headquarters, 1300 Beaubien – Rm. 328-A, Detroit, Michigan 48226


4. SECRETARY’S REPORT – EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GOSS
SUSPENSIONS
On August, 19, 2004, Police Officer Christopher Kennedy, badge 3666, assigned to the Sixth Precinct, was suspended without pay by Chief Ella M. Bully-Cummings.

On August 19, 2004, the Professional Accountability Bureau, Internal Affairs Section was notified of an allegation of misconduct on the part of Officer Christopher Kennedy. More specifically, the allegation concerned Officer Kennedy’s sentence to serve 93 days in the Wayne County Jail for violation of probation.

As a result, the Internal Affairs Section initiated an investigation, which revealed the following:
On June 26, 2004, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Officer Kennedy was at his girlfriend’s (hereinafter victim) home, located within the city of Detroit. As that time, a verbal argument ensued. During the course of the verbal argument, Officer Kennedy grabbed the victim by her arms and forced her into his vehicle whereupon he drove in and around the victim’s neighborhood, eventually making his way to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport (hereinafter Metro Airport).

During the course of travel, Officer Kennedy repeatedly struck the victim in the throat area, the leg area, and with his elbow struck the victim under her left eye.

Additionally, upon nearing Metro Airport, Officer Kennedy began driving at a high rate of speed, weaving in and out of traffic, and eventually losing control of the vehicle, which spun around on Interstate 94 and came to rest facing eastbound in the westbound lane of travel.

On June 28, 2004, the incident herein described was reported to the Professional Accountability Bureau, Internal Affairs Section. On June 30, 2004, a warrant request was presented to the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office.

On July 1, 2004, a warrant was issued against Officer Kennedy, charging him with “Aggravated Assault,” contrary to MCL 750.81a. Aggravated Assault is a misdemeanor punishable by one (1) year in jail and/or a fine of $1,000.00.

On July 21, 2004, Officer Kennedy appeared for pre-trail at the Thirty-Sixth District Court, Judge Jimmy Lee Gray, presiding. At that time, Officer Kennedy pled no contest to the aforementioned charge. Accordingly, Judge Gray sentenced Officer Kennedy to one (1) year reporting probation, 26 weeks of battering counseling, fines and costs, and ordered that Officer Kennedy have no contact with the victim.

On August 12, 2004, the victim reported to the Internal Affairs Section to file a complaint against Officer Kennedy. The victim indicated that Officer Kennedy had engaged in repeated and/or continuing contact with her that caused her to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, and/or harassed. The contact included death threats.

On that same date, Thirty-Sixth District Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Officer Kennedy for violation of probation. More specifically, the no contact provision. Bond was set in the amount of $15,000.00, cash/surety or 10%.

Also, on August 12, 2004, Officer Kennedy was arrested and conveyed to the Detroit Police Department, Sixth Precinct for processing. He was released after posting a bond.

On August 19, 2004, Officer Kennedy appeared before Judge Marylin E. Atkins, of Thirty-Sixth District Court, for a probation violation hearing. He was found guilty of violating his probation, and sentenced to serve 93 days in the Wayne County Jail.

Based on the above circumstances, it is recommended that Officer Kennedy be charged with, but not limited to the following violation of the Detroit Police Department Rules and Regulations:
CHARGE: CONDUCT UNPROFESSIONAL; CONTRARY TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS, THIS BEING IN VIOLATION OF THE DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL, SERIES 100, DIRECTIVE 102.3-5.7, CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER, COMMAND 3.
Unless contravened by this Commission, the above suspension without pay will stand.
Exec. Dir. Goss stated oral arguments will waived for two weeks.

Comm. Holley asked is the only thing recommended for the person is without pay? Would this be subject to dismissal or…?

Exec. Dir. Goss stated that is a discipline matter.

Comm. Holley asked is the discipline handled by Internal Affairs?

Exec. Dir. Goss stated no, it is handled by the Disciplinary Administration Section.

Comm. Holley asked is that something that is handled between the police department and the union? Will it come before us?

Exec. Dir. Goss stated no, unless he appeals the dismissals.

Comm. Holley asked is it possible that all we are doing is basically determining whether or not he/she is getting paid while their on suspension?
Comm. Holley asked is that the only jurisdiction we have?

Exec. Dir. Goss stated yes.

Comm. Holley asked is that all jurisdiction we have?

Exec. Dir. Goss stated for right now.

Comm. Holley asked if the outcome is that the person is recommended that they go back on the police department, does that mean as a Commissioner I don’t have any jurisdiction over that?

Exec. Dir. Goss stated no, not that I know of.

Comm. Holley asked so I have jurisdiction if he appeals, but I have no jurisdiction if I disagree with the outcome of the decision?

(Atty. Hooks entered the conference room.)
Exec. Dir. Goss stated that is correct.

Vice-Chairperson Ramirez stated unless otherwise contravened by the Commission, we could either approve it or…. First of all, the arguments have been postponed for two weeks.

Atty. Hooks asked it two weeks or until next week?

Vice-Chairperson Ramirez stated two weeks.

Comm. Holley asked does that include all three suspensions?

Vice-Chairperson Ramirez stated right.

(Chairperson Blackwell entered the conference room.)

Comm. Holley stated I can decide whether the person should be paid or not while they are going through the process of being found guilty or not guilty, in terms of the discipline, as far as the police department is concerned. However, when the decision is made, then a person is put back on the police department after certain charges and so forth. He asked do I have any jurisdiction over that, unless it is only appealed to me when the officer disagrees.

Atty. Hooks asked when you say that the person will continue or not continue on the payroll, are you saying from this point until the time the arguments are made?

Comm. Holley stated I am really beyond the payroll. I am trying to decide whether a person could continue to be paid or not. However, once the disciplinary action is taken between the police department and the union or whatever they work for this police officer. If I disagree with what they work out,
I don’t have any jurisdiction to say that I think that this person should not be a police officer, if they decide that that person should be a police officer after the action.

Atty. Hooks stated it kind of sounds like there may be a mixing of apples and oranges. Because with a suspension, that is not considered a disciplinary action, that is strictly a…. What they look at, is the underlined conduct that led to the recommendation that is being presenting to you by the Chief. So that’s one thing. After the suspension action has come to you, I guess completion, if you want to put it in that way, that the officer will be charged with conduct unbecoming or so forth and that starts a discipline track.

Comm. Holley stated or he may be vindicated.

Atty. Hooks stated exactly, he may be fully exonerated. Either no charges will be brought or after the disciplinary charges are dropped or he can even….

Comm. Holley asked as a Commissioner and on the organization chart, if I disagree with the final action, I have no jurisdiction as a Commissioner to say that I think that…?


Atty. Hooks stated it will come to you to be finalized only if the action has gone, they have changed it now, it used to be from a Chief’s Hearing to a Trial Board and then after that finding by the Trail Board the member had the right to appeal to either the Board of Police Commissioners or to Arbitration. If it went to arbitration that was binding or the Board had no say so, if it came to you then you did have the right to decide whether or not you were going to uphold whatever was meted out at the Trial Board or to alter that in some way.


Comm. Holley stated I am appalled by the fact that I can only intervene or I can only have a part to play in this, if a police officer disagrees with it. If I disagree with the findings, I have no part to play. He asked is that true?


Atty. Hooks stated that is true.

Comm. Holley asked as a Board of Police Commissioner, I have Commission on one hand and no authority on the other. I feel like there are some decisions that I disagree with. He asked if a police officer disagrees and wants to appeal  to me, then who would I appeal to, if I disagree with the decision that they gave to the police officer?

Atty. Hooks stated the only time that you cannot intervene or step in, is if that police officer determines or decides that he wants to go to arbitration, you have no say over that.

Comm. Holley asked that if I, as a person that represents the community, disagrees with the final decision of the disciplinary action on this police officer, he/she goes back on the police force and I disagree with that decision…. That should be looked into because it is not fair to the community.

Atty. Hooks stated that might be an issue that we will have to explore, but as it stands now….

Comm. Holley asked am I making sense?

Vice-Chairperson Ramirez stated I understand what you are saying.

Chairperson Blackwell stated it’s just not part of the authority of the Board of Police Commissioners, but I know what you are saying.

Comm. Holley stated that is how you get police officers, who perhaps should not be on the police force or back on the police force, then why am I here?

Atty. Hooks stated you still play a very important role?

Comm. Holley stated ya’ll keep telling me that.

Atty. Hooks stated sometimes it is good to explore these other areas to see whether or not we need to step in or what we need to look at. But as it stands now, when it goes to binding arbitration, you don’t have that.
There were no contravention’s to the above suspension without pay.

06242004 - Chief Daniel Black - Lake Angelus PD

In 2004, Chief Daniel Black of the Lake Angelus PD was under investigation for 16 allegations against him. The allegations against Black were never disclosed to the public.

Also See:
CHIEF DANILE BLACK CHARGED WITH FOUR COUNTS OF 1ST DEGREE CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT; TWO COUNTS OF 2ND DEGREE CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT; AND FOUR COUNTS OF 3RD DEGREE CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT. [2007]

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2007/02/chief-daniel-black-lake-angelus-pd.html

Police chief retires
The Oakland Press
Published: Wednesday, October 27, 2004
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2004/10/27/localnews/20041027-archive3.txt

Chief Daniel Black has retired from the Lake Angelus Police Department, just months after a spate of allegations surfaced against him.

The city investigated the allegations - which were never released publicly - and found no substance to any of them. Black had been criticized by residents and even some city officials for improper conduct.

The city revitalized its Law Enforcement Committee to look into allegations, which were made shortly after the termination of several reserve police officers in February.

Black submitted his request for retirement Oct. 11. It will take effect Nov. 5, said city Clerk Rosalie Lake.
"We're in the process of looking for a new chief," she said. "We're accepting resumes."

Black's wife, Sherry, remains employed with the Lake Angelus Police Department, Lake said, where she is a sergeant. Neither Dan nor Sherry Black could be reached for comment.

Earlier this year, city officials gave Black immunity in exchange for his response to the 16 allegations against him. A report was compiled by city attorneys, but it was never released to the public.

The Lake Angelus Police Department was also under investigation by the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards.
Officials there have said the investigation is administrative, rather than criminal. The commission provides certification for police officers.

Commission officials could not be reached for comment.







Police chief won't lose his job, council says
The Oakland Press
Published: Tuesday, August 17, 2004
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2004/08/17/localnews/20040817-archive5.txt

Indicating there was little substance to a spate of allegations against him, the Lake Angelus City Council said Police Chief Daniel Black will keep his job.

Several residents and police officers spoke out in support of Black at Monday night's meeting - some of whom had been critical of him in the past.

Resident Cheryl Case, long a critic of Black's, publicly apologized to the chief and the City Council for speaking out about the allegations. She also praised the police department.

"I feel a lot safer knowing they are here," she said.
The chief's wife, Sherry Black, also supported her husband. She is a sergeant with the Lake Angelus Police Department.

"I'm Sherry Black, and obviously I'm behind the chief," she said.

Last month, city officials gave Black immunity in exchange for his response to the 16 allegations against him. City attorney Dan Christ investigated the allegations and officials said there was no substance to them.

The allegations lodged against Black have never been publicly disclosed.

"If the allegations were that serious, why were they not brought to our attention earlier?" asked Councilman Gary Parlove. "The most significant thing is this: All the information that came to us came from people who were no longer employed by the police department. It was all secondary evidence."

And even though Black will keep his job, the Lake Angelus Police Department is under investigation by the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards. Officials there say the investigation is administrative, rather than criminal. MCOLES provides certification for police officers Councilwoman Lee McNew, who said at the July 15 meeting that she had lost confidence in Black, said the report compiled by Christ -which has not been publicly released - showed no reason to fire the chief.

"We feel the status quo is the best routine at this point," McNew said. "There are many changes that need to be made (in the department), and the law enforcement committee can take care of that."

McNew did not elaborate on what changes should be made.

The city's Law Enforcement Committee, which was revitalized this year to look into allegations made shortly after the termination of several reserve police officers in February, is made up of Parlove, resident Jim Cortez and Mayor George Frisch.

Cortez said at Monday's meeting that there was an "organized smear campaign" trying to get Black fired.

"A lot of you have been misled," he said.








Little city, strange problems
Published: Saturday, July 24, 2004
The Oakland Press
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2004/07/24/opinions/20040724-archive.txt

Although it's one of the smallest communities in Oakland County, Lake Angelus has a lot of eyes on it these days.

At the center of the rather confusing and bizarre story is Police Chief Daniel Black, who's under investigation by the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement.

But that's about all anyone knows, including a number of irate residents who are upset with city officials for refusing to disclose what's going on.

So far, the City Council has done little that makes any sense other than showing its arrogance.
The council voted to give Black immunity in return for responding to the 16 allegations against him. Talk about your sweetheart deals. There was no other way to get some honest answers?

Only after that information is obtained will council members decide whether to release it to the people they work for - Lake Angelus residents.

All of these problems in a community of 326 people, according to the 2000 census - that's down from 328 in 1990. Perhaps they should look into contracting for their police protection with the Sheriff's Department.








City gives police chief immunity
Published: Friday, July 16, 2004
The Oakland Press
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2004/07/16/localnews/20040716-archive1.txt

LAKE ANGELUS - City officials have given Police Chief Daniel Black immunity in exchange for his response to a laundry list of allegations against him.

But, so far, officials have refused to disclose what the 16 allegations are against Black. State officials, however, revealed that there is an investigation into the department.

At a special meeting Thursday night, the City Council voted to grant Black the measure of protection. Under United States v. Garrity, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers cannot incriminate themselves when ordered to answer questions.

Under Garrity, city attorney Dan Christ said, Black can't face prosecution for his answers. However, police officers can be fired for failing to answer questions.
Christ said he plans to meet with Black in the coming days and will draft a report for the City Council, which will then decide whether to make the document public.

The Lake Angelus Police Department, which is among the smallest departments in Oakland County, is under investigation by the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards, said MCOLES Deputy Director Gary Ruffini.

"We're looking into some issues," he said.

Ruffini declined further comment but said the investigation is administrative in nature rather than criminal.

MCOLES provides certification for police officers.

A local law enforcement official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the department may have allowed officers to maintain their certifications by claiming they worked in Lake Angelus as police William Kucyk, Black's attorney, declined to comment on the allegations.

Residents at Thursday's meeting said the community had lost faith in Black. Some called for his dismissal and others expressed frustration at the way the City Council has handled the issue.

"His credibility is impugned to the point that there's no respect in the community," said resident Ed Adler. "You really should consider replacing him."

As an at-will employee, Black can be fired at any time - and for any reason - by the City Council.

"(Black) really ought to be given a chance to respond," said Councilwoman Lee McNew. "But we've lost confidence."

So far, the issue has been under the purview of the Law Enforcement Committee, which was revitalized this year to look into allegations made shortly after the terminations of several reserve police officers in February.

"It was to knock out all the rumors, so to speak, floating about the community," said Councilman Gary Parlove.

Officials said Thursday that they didn't know if an outside agency, such as the Michigan State Police, would ever investigate the matter.

"It's all out in the open now, and it will be addressed," Parlove said.

Meanwhile, state officials are investigating matters of police certification.David King, spokesman for MCOLES, said officers must work as police officers with full police power to maintain their certification.

In an investigation, MCOLES officials look out for obvious fraud - such as paying someone $1 a year simply to keep them on the books, a practice more common when these standards were initiated more than two decades ago, King said.

However, many smaller departments, particularly in northern Michigan, rely on part-time officers, some of whom work for more than one department.

"We look for evidence that there is a regular presence of this person as an employee," King said.

MCOLES requested payroll records from the city's police department dating back to 1999, Parlove said at Monday night's meeting.

Parlove said at Thursday's meeting that the request was caused, in part, by Sherry Black's certification. Sherry Black is the chief's wife and a sergeant with the Lake Angelus Police Department.

MCOLES has no criminal authority, but if fraud is found, the case could then be turned over to the state Attorney General's Office.

Staff writer Stephen Frye contributed to this report.








Chief to meet with city attorney
Published: Tuesday, July 13, 2004
The Oakland Press
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2004/07/13/localnews/20040713-archive1.txt

With some residents calling for his dismissal, Lake Angelus Police Chief Daniel Black will get a chance to refute allegations of misconduct.

Black will meet with a city attorney today to be informed of the 16 allegations - which have not been disclosed - made against him, said City Attorney Lawrence Ternan. He said lawyers are looking into criminal and noncriminal violations because of the allegations.

"At this point we'd really like Dan Black to review what the issues are and respond to them," Ternan said.

Black, who was not at Monday night's City Council meeting, could not be reached for comment.

Many residents who attended the meeting expressed frustration that Black was still chief. They also seemed angry that officials were investigating the allegations internally and had not contacted an outside agency to look into the matter.

Council members said they were looking into the allegations and that investigations of this manner take time. Still, some officials said residents were getting antsy for a resolution to the issue.

"I feel very strongly that we need to act quickly," Councilwoman Lee McNew said. "The longer this drags on is bad for us and it is bad for (Black). It looks like we're not doing anything."

Allegations have swirled around Black for several months. City officials have refused to disclose the allegations against Black. The Michigan Coalition on Law Enforcement Standards requested payroll records from the city's police department dating back to 1999, said Councilman Gary Parlove at Monday night's meeting.

Parlove, a member of the Law Enforcement Committee - formed to look into allegations made against Black - said the city's investigation of the allegations is moving along.

"There's a process that needs to be followed," he said.










Police chief faces allegations
Published: Thursday, June 24, 2004
The Oakland Press
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2004/06/24/policecourt/20040624-archive0.txt

LAKE ANGELUS - Lake Angelus officials are looking into allegations against the city's police chief, but refused to disclose the nature of the alleged offenses.

The Law Enforcement Committee, formed to look into allegations made against Chief Daniel Black, met Monday night. Mayor George Frisch said the City Council will meet in the coming weeks to determine how to proceed in probing the allegations, which he refused to discuss.

The next regular meeting of the City Council is July 12.

"All I can say is we are looking into the matter," he said.
Pierre Beaudet, a councilman, also declined to say what the chief was being accused of, saying only that officials would turn any information over to an outside body if it deemed necessary.

"There's a lot of stuff going on," Beaudet said.

The allegations could stem from the recent firing of a police lieutenant. Beaudet said the lieutenant was fired because of budget woes and he would not say whether the lieutenant was the one making allegations against Black.

"Most of the accusations are unsubstantiated at this point," Beaudet said. "But we have to find out what's what. I think we all recognize something has to be done with the police department."

Beaudet said the firing of the lieutenant was not handled well. He also said in a small town like Lake Angelus - which has about 300 residents - it is important to nip rumors in the bud to avoid damaging reputations.

Jim Cortez, a member of the Law Enforcement Committee, declined to comment on Monday's meeting, which was open to the public. He said the City Council will be informed of the situation and another public meeting will be held soon.

Black did not return calls seeking comment.

06182004 - Firefighter Michael Boyd - Third Offense - Southgate FD

On June 18, 2004 Firefighter Michael Boyd [Southgate FD] was charged with menacing.

Firefighter Michael Boyd [Southgate FD]: Assault charges [June 18, 2004] http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2004/06/firefighter-michael-boyd-southgate-fd.html