While running for Jackson County Sheriff, Lance Laird [on probation for a domestic violence charge] violated probation when he tested positive for drugs [June 16, 2012]. On July 31, 2012 Laird was sentenced to 57 days in jail for the probation violation.
JACKSON, MI — Jackson County Sheriff candidate Lance Laird will spend the Aug. 7 primary behind bars.
District Judge R. Darryl Mazur sent Laird, 36, to jail for 57 days after testing positive for cocaine while on probation. Laird claimed someone spiked his stuff with something causing the positive test. "Mr. Laird, I'm not sure whether you're going to make this election for sheriff or not," Mazur said before imposing a sentence in the matter. "Candidly, I doubt it."
Laird, on probation for a domestic violence charge to which he pleaded no contest in March 2011, tested positive for cocaine when tested on June 16, according to information presented in court.The 57-day sentence is the remainder of Laird's 93-day maximum sentence for the domestic violence charge. Laird already spent 36 days in jail for the original charge and other violations. During his violation hearing Tuesday, Laird accused Tammy Sanders, the woman he allegedly assaulted, of putting something in his stuff to create the positive test. Laird attempted to play a recording of Sanders admitting to "putting stuff in my things," he said. The audio could not be heard by Mazur or anyone else in the courtroom. Mazur asked Laird what the essence of the recording was, and Laird replied, "She said, yeah, I put stuff in your shit." Laird never used the words cocaine or drugs in his allegations against Sanders. Sanders was not in court to testify. Laird said she lies and would not be a credible witness. Mazur said it would have been more credible had Sanders come in to testify Tuesday. Laird's attorney was also not present. Laird said she had another hearing. Kris Putman, Laird's probation officer, said Laird did not show up for tests on June 12 and June 13. Putman called Laird and told him to go test. Laird told Putman he was frustrated with the system. Laird did not provide enough urine on June 15. On June 16, his test was positive for cocaine. Laird requested the sample be sent away for verification. The verification came back positive as well. Laird claims the initial domestic violence charge was based on lies and made against him because of an on-going custody dispute with Sanders. Photographs taken after the assault show Sanders with a cut lip and a bloody nose. Police reports provided by Laird show that Sanders had reported Laird hit her twice before. She had no marks, and police could not verify that an assault occurred in each. After the third report, when Sanders went to the Jackson Police Department with a bloodied face, Laird was arrested. He pleaded no contest to avoid spending more time in jail awaiting a trial, he said in previous conversations. Laird's stint in jail will his 15th, according to jail records. Charges against Laird in previous, unrelated matters, were dismissed, court records show. A jury convicted him of operating while impaired in 2008. He was found guilty of assault and battery in 1994. Laird has been convicted of traffic infractions and having a dog at large, according to court records. There have been eight civil actions filed against him. He contends the county justice system is corrupt and has fought his probation and previous charges. Laird has said as sheriff he would throw in jail prosecutors and judges who violate people's rights and use plea deals as instruments of coercion. He believes the county's criminal justice system is overrun with corruption. "What would you do if you were sheriff?" Mazur asked. "I don't think that's proper for the court," Laird responded. "I'm not here for my political agenda." "I'm curious," Mazur said. "Maybe you should ask me outside of court," Laird responded. At the close of the hearing, Mazur said, "If you're elected sheriff, go ahead hold us all accountable." Laird was placed in handcuffs and led out of the courtroom.
JULY 20, 2012: While intoxicated, Firefighter Thoma attempted a stunt on while driving his motorcycle and without his helmet on. Thoma was seriously injured. Thoma was charged with a felony: operating while intoxicated, third offense, which was punishable up to 5 years in prison. In January 2013, Thoma pled nolo contendere to MCL 257.6256D [operating intoxicated / impaired /controlled substance, third offense. Thoma was sentenced to 3 years probation.
2003: Firefighter Gerald Thoma Jr. was charged again for opertaing a motor vehicle while impaired. It was his second DUI offense. During this incident, Thoma rammed his truck into an acquaintance's house and vehicle in Muskegon Township while attending a party there. He eventually pleaded no contest to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to 45 days in the Muskegon County Jail and 24 months of probation. http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2003/06/fire-captain-gerald-paul-thoma-jr.html
MUSKEGON, MI -- Gerald Paul Thoma, a former Fruitport Township fire captain, has served a jail sentence and is serving a long probation term for felony drunken driving involving a videotaped motorcycle accident that seriously injured him. According to court records, Muskegon County 60th District Judge Andrew Wierengo III last month sentenced Thoma, 49, of Fruitport Township, to jail for 30 days, with credit for 30 days already served. Thoma also was placed on probation for three years, ordered to wear a SCRAM alcohol monitor for 45 days and ordered to pay $948 in fines and costs, according to court records. Thoma pleaded no contest earlier to third-offense driving while intoxicated, a felony. Most felony cases go to circuit court for plea or trial, but Thoma was referred to Wierengo’s Sobriety Court. Thoma was arraigned Oct. 2, 2012. The longtime fire captain submitted his resignation after he was charged with a crime. According to earlier reports, toxicology test results indicated he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.10 percent when the accident happened at 11 p.m. July 20, 2012, in the parking lot of Office Max in the 1700 block of East Sherman Boulevard in the city of Muskegon, authorities said. The blood-alcohol limit for driving a motor vehicle in Michigan is 0.08 percent. Thoma struck a concrete parking block while attempting the stunt, police said. A video of the accident was released to the media by the Muskegon County Prosecutor’s Office. Thoma suffered serious injuries and was hospitalized for several weeks after the crash.
MUSKEGON, MI -- The preliminary examination has been postponed for Gerald Paul Thoma, the former Fruitport Township fire captain charged with felony drunken driving involving a videotaped motorcycle accident. Thoma's hearing, originally scheduled for Monday, was adjourned to Nov. 19 at the request of defense attorney Terry J. Nolan, to allow time for the defense to get medical records. At the hearing, a Muskegon County 60th District judge will hear testimony and view evidence to decide whether the case against Thoma is strong enough to bring to trial in 14th Circuit Court. Thoma, 48, of Fruitport Township, was arraigned Oct. 2 on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense. Thoma, a longtime fire captain, submitted his resignation last month after he was charged. Toxicology test results indicate he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.10 percent when the accident happened at 11 p.m. July 20 in the parking lot of Office Max in the 1700 block of East Sherman Boulevard in the city of Muskegon, authorities said. The blood-alcohol limit for driving a motor vehicle in Michigan is 0.08. Thoma struck a concrete parking block while attempting the stunt, police said. A video of the accident was released to the media by the Muskegon County Prosecutor’s Office. Thoma suffered serious injuries and was hospitalized for several weeks following the crash.
Fruitport Township Fire Department captain resigns on heels of criminal charge
Published: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 6:24 AM
Updated: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 8:49 AM
By Heather Lynn Peters
The Muskegon Chronicle http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2012/09/fruitport_township_fire_depart.html FRUITPORT TOWNSHIP, MI – Gerald Paul Thoma Jr., the veteran Fruitport Township firefighter charged with third-offense drunk driving, has resigned from the fire department. Thoma, 48, a longtime Fruitport Township Fire Department captain, turned in his resignation letter Friday to Fruitport Township Supervisor Brian Werschem. On Monday the township board of trustees accepted the resignation, Werschem said. The board, not the public safety director, makes the hiring and firing decisions for the township. Thoma was charged with the five-year felony recently in connection with a July 20 motorcycle accident in which Thoma was seriously injured. It wasn’t clear Thursday whether Thoma had yet been arraigned on the charge, but a warrant was signed last week. Toxicology test results indicate Thoma had a blood-alcohol level of 0.10 percent when the accident happened at 11 p.m. in the parking lot of Office Max in the 1700 block of East Sherman Boulevard in the city of Muskegon. The blood-alcohol limit for driving a motor vehicle in Michigan is 0.08. Thoma struck a concrete parking block while attempting the stunt, police said. A video of the accident was released to the media by the Muskegon County Prosecutor’s Office. Thoma suffered serious injuries and was hospitalized for several weeks following the crash. He was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, according to the Muskegon police report. Others were doing stunts in the parking lot on July 20 when Thoma tried to do a stunt himself, police said. Thoma was previously charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired in 1985 and 2003, both in Muskegon County.
FRUITPORT TOWNSHIP, MI – The Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office has released a video showing an incident in July that injured a Fruitport Township fire captain, who was allegedly intoxicated when it occurred.
The six-second video shows Gerald Paul Thoma Jr., who has been charged with a felony, moving past another motorcyclist in an empty Office Max parking lot in the 1700 block of East Sherman Boulevard in the city of Muskegon on July 20. The video shows him falling off his bike as sparks fly. Thoma has been charged for operating while intoxicated third offense, after toxicology test results indicated that he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.10 percent. The legal blood-alcohol limit for driving a motor vehicle in Michigan is 0.08. Thoma had not been arraigned in Muskegon County 60th District Court as of Thursday evening. Police said others had been doing stunts in the parking lot that night when Thoma attempted one himself. He was seriously injured when he hit a concrete block and has only recently been released from the hospital, according to family and friends. He was not wearing a helmet at the time, according to a police report. It is unclear if the incident will affect his job at the fire department. Court records show that Thoma has previous drunk driving convictions in Muskegon County. He was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired in 1985 and 2003. He also pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence for punching his then-16-year-old son in the nose three times in 2007.
Gerald Paul Thoma Jr., 48, a captain with the Fruitport Township Fire Department was charged for an alleged drunken driving accident incident, depicted in this video, that happened while he was trying to do a stunt on his motorcycle in July, according to police. Thoma, shown in this video as the motorcyclist in the back, was seriously injured in the crash was just released from the hospital, according to friends and family.
MUSKEGON, Mich. (WOOD) - A Fruitport Township fire captain could spend five years behind bars if convicted of his third drunk driving charge.
A warrant for Gerald Thoma Jr. was issued, according to Muskegon County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Brett Gardner, but he has not yet been arraigned on a count of operating while intoxicated (third offense). The charge stems from a July 20 incident that happened in the parking lot of the Office Max on E. Sherman Boulevard in Muskegon.
Thoma, 48, was allegedly trying to perform a stunt on his motorcycle when he was seriously injured. He was not wearing a helmet and recovered in a hospital for more than a month. His blood-alcohol content ( BAC) level was 0.10 at the time, according to a toxicology report -- .02 higher than the legal limit in Michigan. Thoma's previous drunk driving charges were from 1985 and 2003 -- both in Muskegon County.
FRUITPORT TOWNSHIP, MI – A Fruitport Township fire captain has been charged with a felony for an alleged drunken driving incident that police say happened while he was trying to do a stunt on his motorcycle in July. Muskegon County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Brett Gardner confirmed Wednesday that a warrant has been signed for Gerald Paul Thoma Jr., 48, of the Fruitport Township Fire Department for operating while intoxicated, third offense. That’s a felony punishable up to five years in prison if convicted, Gardner said. As of late Wednesday afternoon, Thoma hadn't yet been arraigned in Muskegon County 60th District Court. Toxicology test results indicate Thoma had a blood-alcohol level of 0.10 percent when the accident happened at 11 p.m. on July 20 in the parking lot of Office Max in the 1700 block of East Sherman Boulevard in the city of Muskegon. The legal blood-alcohol limit for driving a motor vehicle in Michigan is 0.08. Thoma was seriously injured in the crash and only recently released from the hospital, according to friends and family. It wasn't clear what condition Thoma was in as of late Wednesday. He was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, according to the Muskegon police report. Others were doing stunts in the parking lot on July 20 when Thoma tried to do a stunt himself, police said. A woman had been on the back of Thoma’s motorcycle just prior to the crash, but wasn’t on the bike when he crashed, police said. Thoma struck a concrete parking block in the parking lot while attempting the stunt, police said. Fruitport Township Public Safety Director Ken Doctor said Wednesday that he was unaware of the charges filed against Thoma. Doctor could not say whether the charge will affect Thoma's job at the fire department. It will be up to the township board to decide whether Thoma will keep his job, Doctor said, adding that he doesn’t do the “hiring or the firing” at the fire department. “That decision will rest with the township board,” Doctor said. Thoma has had previous drunken driving convictions in Muskegon County, court records show. Thoma was previously charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired in 1985 and 2003, both in Muskegon County. The 2003 incident occurred when Thoma rammed his truck into an acquaintance's house and vehicle in Muskegon Township while attending a party there, according to police. He eventually pleaded no contest to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to 45 days in the Muskegon County Jail and 24 months of probation. In 2007 Thoma pleaded pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence for punching his then-16-year-old son in the nose three times. According to a police report, Thoma and his son got into an argument that escalated into an assault at their home. The son called 911. A judge sentenced Thoma to probation, fines, court costs and anger-management class for that offense.
MUSKEGON, MI – A longtime Fruitport Township firefighter was seriously injured Friday night while attempting a stunt on his motorcycle in the parking lot of a business along Sherman Boulevard.
Jerry Thoma Jr., 48, a captain with the Fruitport Township Fire Department, was injured shortly after 11 p.m. Friday while he was doing a “burn-out” in the parking lot of Office Max, 1700 E. Sherman Boulevard, according to authorities. He was not wearing a helmet at the time, according to the Muskegon Police report. Others were doing stunts in the parking lot and then Thoma tried to do a stunt himself, police said. A woman had been on the back of Thoma’s motorcycle just prior to the crash, but wasn’t on the bike when he crashed, police said. Thoma struck a concrete pole in the parking lot while attempting the stunt, police said. When authorities arrived to the scene a woman was holding Thoma's head and neck. He is currently at Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids. A Facebook page has been started to keep friends and family updated on his status. As of Monday morning, a friend of Thoma said he was in a coma and unable to speak. Thoma has been a Fruitport Township firefighter for 22 years, according to Fruitport Township Public Safety Director Ken Doctor.
FRUITPORT TOWNSHIP -- A Fruitport Township fire captain has pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence for punching his 16-year-old son in the nose. Gerald Paul Thoma Jr., 43, entered the plea Tuesday before 60th District Judge Michael J. Nolan. Nolan sentenced Thoma to probation, fines and costs and anger-management class. According to a police report, Thoma and his 16-year-old son got into an argument June 2 that escalated into an assault at their home at 3148 E. Pontaluna. The son called 911. Police said Thoma punched the teen in the nose three times. It's not Thoma's first criminal conviction. In June 2003, Thoma was arrested for ramming his truck into an acquaintance's house and vehicle in Muskegon Township while attending a party there. He eventually pleaded no contest to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to 45 days in the county jail and 24 months of probation.
***** 257.625 THIS SECTION IS AMENDED EFFECTIVE MARCH 31, 2013: See 257.625.amended *****
257.625 Operating motor vehicle while intoxicated; operating motor vehicle when visibly impaired; penalties for causing death or serious impairment of a body function; operation of motor vehicle by person less than 21 years of age; requirements; controlled substances; costs; enhanced sentence; guilty plea or nolo contendere; establishment of prior conviction; special verdict; public record; burden of proving religious service or ceremony; ignition interlock device; “prior conviction” defined.
Sec. 625.
(1) A person, whether licensed or not, shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state if the person is operating while intoxicated. As used in this section, "operating while intoxicated" means any of the following:
(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or a combination of alcoholic liquor and a controlled substance.
(b) The person has an alcohol content of 0.08 grams or more per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine, or, beginning October 1, 2013, the person has an alcohol content of 0.10 grams or more per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine.
(c) The person has an alcohol content of 0.17 grams or more per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine.
(2) The owner of a vehicle or a person in charge or in control of a vehicle shall not authorize or knowingly permit the vehicle to be operated upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of motor vehicles, within this state by a person if any of the following apply:
(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or a combination of alcoholic liquor and a controlled substance.
(b) The person has an alcohol content of 0.08 grams or more per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine or, beginning October 1, 2013, the person has an alcohol content of 0.10 grams or more per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine.
(c) The person's ability to operate the motor vehicle is visibly impaired due to the consumption of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or a combination of alcoholic liquor and a controlled substance.
(3) A person, whether licensed or not, shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state when, due to the consumption of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or a combination of alcoholic liquor and a controlled substance, the person's ability to operate the vehicle is visibly impaired. If a person is charged with violating subsection (1), a finding of guilty under this subsection may be rendered.
(4) A person, whether licensed or not, who operates a motor vehicle in violation of subsection (1), (3), or (8) and by the operation of that motor vehicle causes the death of another person is guilty of a crime as follows:
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not less than $2,500.00 or more than $10,000.00, or both. The judgment of sentence may impose the sanction permitted under section 625n. If the vehicle is not ordered forfeited under section 625n, the court shall order vehicle immobilization under section 904d in the judgment of sentence.
(b) If, at the time of the violation, the person is operating a motor vehicle in a manner proscribed under section 653a and causes the death of a police officer, firefighter, or other emergency response personnel, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not less than $2,500.00 or more than $10,000.00, or both. This subdivision applies regardless of whether the person is charged with the violation of section 653a. The judgment of sentence may impose the sanction permitted under section 625n. If the vehicle is not ordered forfeited under section 625n, the court shall order vehicle immobilization under section 904d in the judgment of sentence.
(5) A person, whether licensed or not, who operates a motor vehicle in violation of subsection (1), (3), or (8) and by the operation of that motor vehicle causes a serious impairment of a body function of another person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not less than $1,000.00 or more than $5,000.00, or both. The judgment of sentence may impose the sanction permitted under section 625n. If the vehicle is not ordered forfeited under section 625n, the court shall order vehicle immobilization under section 904d in the judgment of sentence.
(6) A person who is less than 21 years of age, whether licensed or not, shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state if the person has any bodily alcohol content. As used in this subsection, "any bodily alcohol content" means either of the following:
(a) An alcohol content of 0.02 grams or more but less than 0.08 grams per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine, or, beginning October 1, 2013, the person has an alcohol content of 0.02 grams or more but less than 0.10 grams per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine.
(b) Any presence of alcohol within a person's body resulting from the consumption of alcoholic liquor, other than consumption of alcoholic liquor as a part of a generally recognized religious service or ceremony.
(7) A person, whether licensed or not, is subject to the following requirements:
(a) He or she shall not operate a vehicle in violation of subsection (1), (3), (4), (5), or (8) while another person who is less than 16 years of age is occupying the vehicle. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a crime punishable as follows:
(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), a person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $200.00 or more than $1,000.00 and to 1 or more of the following:
(A) Imprisonment for not less than 5 days or more than 1 year. Not less than 48 hours of this imprisonment shall be served consecutively. This term of imprisonment shall not be suspended.
(B) Community service for not less than 30 days or more than 90 days.
(ii) If the violation occurs within 7 years of a prior conviction or after 2 or more prior convictions, regardless of the number of years that have elapsed since any prior conviction, a person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a felony and shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $500.00 or more than $5,000.00 and to either of the following:
(A) Imprisonment under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections for not less than 1 year or more than 5 years.
(B) Probation with imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 30 days or more than 1 year and community service for not less than 60 days or more than 180 days. Not less than 48 hours of this imprisonment shall be served consecutively. This term of imprisonment shall not be suspended.
(b) He or she shall not operate a vehicle in violation of subsection (6) while another person who is less than 16 years of age is occupying the vehicle. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable as follows:
(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), a person who violates this subdivision may be sentenced to 1 or more of the following:
(A) Community service for not more than 60 days.
(B) A fine of not more than $500.00.
(C) Imprisonment for not more than 93 days.
(ii) If the violation occurs within 7 years of a prior conviction or after 2 or more prior convictions, regardless of the number of years that have elapsed since any prior conviction, a person who violates this subdivision shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $200.00 or more than $1,000.00 and to 1 or more of the following:
(A) Imprisonment for not less than 5 days or more than 1 year. Not less than 48 hours of this imprisonment shall be served consecutively. This term of imprisonment shall not be suspended.
(B) Community service for not less than 30 days or more than 90 days.
(c) In the judgment of sentence under subdivision (a)(i) or (b)(i), the court may, unless the vehicle is ordered forfeited under section 625n, order vehicle immobilization as provided in section 904d. In the judgment of sentence under subdivision (a)(ii) or (b)(ii), the court shall, unless the vehicle is ordered forfeited under section 625n, order vehicle immobilization as provided in section 904d.
(d) This subsection does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for a violation of subsection (4) or (5) that is committed by the person while violating this subsection. However, points shall not be assessed under section 320a for both a violation of subsection (4) or (5) and a violation of this subsection for conduct arising out of the same transaction.
(8) A person, whether licensed or not, shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state if the person has in his or her body any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule 1 under section 7212 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7212, or a rule promulgated under that section, or of a controlled substance described in section 7214(a)(iv) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7214.
(9) If a person is convicted of violating subsection (1) or (8), all of the following apply:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by 1 or more of the following:
(i) Community service for not more than 360 hours.
(ii) Imprisonment for not more than 93 days, or, if the person is convicted of violating subsection (1)(c), imprisonment for not more than 180 days.
(iii) A fine of not less than $100.00 or more than $500.00, or, if the person is guilty of violating subsection (1)(c), a fine of not less than $200.00 or more than $700.00.
(b) If the violation occurs within 7 years of a prior conviction, the person shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $200.00 or more than $1,000.00 and 1 or more of the following:
(i) Imprisonment for not less than 5 days or more than 1 year. Not less than 48 hours of the term of imprisonment imposed under this subparagraph shall be served consecutively.
(ii) Community service for not less than 30 days or more than 90 days.
(c) If the violation occurs after 2 or more prior convictions, regardless of the number of years that have elapsed since any prior conviction, the person is guilty of a felony and shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $500.00 or more than $5,000.00 and to either of the following:
(i) Imprisonment under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections for not less than 1 year or more than 5 years.
(ii) Probation with imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 30 days or more than 1 year and community service for not less than 60 days or more than 180 days. Not less than 48 hours of the imprisonment imposed under this subparagraph shall be served consecutively.
(d) A term of imprisonment imposed under subdivision (b) or (c) shall not be suspended.
(e) In the judgment of sentence under subdivision (a), the court may order vehicle immobilization as provided in section 904d. In the judgment of sentence under subdivision (b) or (c), the court shall, unless the vehicle is ordered forfeited under section 625n, order vehicle immobilization as provided in section 904d.
(f) In the judgment of sentence under subdivision (b) or (c), the court may impose the sanction permitted under section 625n.
(10) A person who is convicted of violating subsection (2) is guilty of a crime as follows:
(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not less than $100.00 or more than $500.00, or both.
(b) If the person operating the motor vehicle violated subsection (4), a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not less than $1,500.00 or more than $10,000.00, or both.
(c) If the person operating the motor vehicle violated subsection (5), a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not less than $1,000.00 or more than $5,000.00, or both.
(11) If a person is convicted of violating subsection (3), all of the following apply:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by 1 or more of the following:
(i) Community service for not more than 360 hours.
(ii) Imprisonment for not more than 93 days.
(iii) A fine of not more than $300.00.
(b) If the violation occurs within 7 years of 1 prior conviction, the person shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $200.00 or more than $1,000.00, and 1 or more of the following:
(i) Imprisonment for not less than 5 days or more than 1 year. Not less than 48 hours of the term of imprisonment imposed under this subparagraph shall be served consecutively.
(ii) Community service for not less than 30 days or more than 90 days.
(c) If the violation occurs after 2 or more prior convictions, regardless of the number of years that have elapsed since any prior conviction, the person is guilty of a felony and shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $500.00 or more than $5,000.00 and either of the following:
(i) Imprisonment under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections for not less than 1 year or more than 5 years.
(ii) Probation with imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 30 days or more than 1 year and community service for not less than 60 days or more than 180 days. Not less than 48 hours of the imprisonment imposed under this subparagraph shall be served consecutively.
(d) A term of imprisonment imposed under subdivision (b) or (c) shall not be suspended.
(e) In the judgment of sentence under subdivision (a), the court may order vehicle immobilization as provided in section 904d. In the judgment of sentence under subdivision (b) or (c), the court shall, unless the vehicle is ordered forfeited under section 625n, order vehicle immobilization as provided in section 904d.
(f) In the judgment of sentence under subdivision (b) or (c), the court may impose the sanction permitted under section 625n.
(12) If a person is convicted of violating subsection (6), all of the following apply:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by 1 or both of the following:
(i) Community service for not more than 360 hours.
(ii) A fine of not more than $250.00.
(b) If the violation occurs within 7 years of 1 or more prior convictions, the person may be sentenced to 1 or more of the following:
(i) Community service for not more than 60 days.
(ii) A fine of not more than $500.00.
(iii) Imprisonment for not more than 93 days.
(13) In addition to imposing the sanctions prescribed under this section, the court may order the person to pay the costs of the prosecution under the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 760.1 to 777.69.
(14) A person sentenced to perform community service under this section shall not receive compensation and shall reimburse the state or appropriate local unit of government for the cost of supervision incurred by the state or local unit of government as a result of the person's activities in that service.
(15) If the prosecuting attorney intends to seek an enhanced sentence under this section or a sanction under section 625n based upon the defendant having 1 or more prior convictions, the prosecuting attorney shall include on the complaint and information, or an amended complaint and information, filed in district court, circuit court, municipal court, or family division of circuit court, a statement listing the defendant's prior convictions.
(16) If a person is charged with a violation of subsection (1), (3), (4), (5), (7), or (8) or section 625m, the court shall not permit the defendant to enter a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a charge of violating subsection (6) in exchange for dismissal of the original charge. This subsection does not prohibit the court from dismissing the charge upon the prosecuting attorney's motion.
(17) A prior conviction shall be established at sentencing by 1 or more of the following:
(a) A copy of a judgment of conviction.
(b) An abstract of conviction.
(c) A transcript of a prior trial or a plea-taking or sentencing proceeding.
(d) A copy of a court register of actions.
(e) A copy of the defendant's driving record.
(f) Information contained in a presentence report.
(g) An admission by the defendant.
(18) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (20), if a person is charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance or a combination of alcoholic liquor and a controlled substance in violation of subsection (1) or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to subsection (1), the court shall require the jury to return a special verdict in the form of a written finding or, if the court convicts the person without a jury or accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court shall make a finding as to whether the person was under the influence of a controlled substance or a combination of alcoholic liquor and a controlled substance at the time of the violation.
(19) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (20), if a person is charged with operating a vehicle while his or her ability to operate the vehicle was visibly impaired due to his or her consumption of a controlled substance or a combination of alcoholic liquor and a controlled substance in violation of subsection (3) or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to subsection (3), the court shall require the jury to return a special verdict in the form of a written finding or, if the court convicts the person without a jury or accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court shall make a finding as to whether, due to the consumption of a controlled substance or a combination of alcoholic liquor and a controlled substance, the person's ability to operate a motor vehicle was visibly impaired at the time of the violation.
(20) A special verdict described in subsections (18) and (19) is not required if a jury is instructed to make a finding solely as to either of the following:
(a) Whether the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance or a combination of alcoholic liquor and a controlled substance at the time of the violation.
(b) Whether the defendant was visibly impaired due to his or her consumption of a controlled substance or a combination of alcoholic liquor and a controlled substance at the time of the violation.
(21) If a jury or court finds under subsection (18), (19), or (20) that the defendant operated a motor vehicle under the influence of or while impaired due to the consumption of a controlled substance or a combination of a controlled substance and an alcoholic liquor, the court shall do both of the following:
(a) Report the finding to the secretary of state.
(b) On a form or forms prescribed by the state court administrator, forward to the department of state police a record that specifies the penalties imposed by the court, including any term of imprisonment, and any sanction imposed under section 625n or 904d.
(22) Except as otherwise provided by law, a record described in subsection (21)(b) is a public record and the department of state police shall retain the information contained on that record for not less than 7 years.
(23) In a prosecution for a violation of subsection (6), the defendant bears the burden of proving that the consumption of alcoholic liquor was a part of a generally recognized religious service or ceremony by a preponderance of the evidence.
(24) The court may order as a condition of probation that a person convicted of violating subsection (1) or (8), or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to subsection (1) or (8), shall not operate a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with an ignition interlock device approved, certified, and installed as required under sections 625k and 625l.
(25) Subject to subsection (27), as used in this section, "prior conviction" means a conviction for any of the following, whether under a law of this state, a local ordinance substantially corresponding to a law of this state, a law of the United States substantially corresponding to a law of this state, or a law of another state substantially corresponding to a law of this state:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (26), a violation or attempted violation of any of the following:
(i) This section, except a violation of subsection (2), or a violation of any prior enactment of this section in which the defendant operated a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating or alcoholic liquor or a controlled substance, or a combination of intoxicating or alcoholic liquor and a controlled substance, or while visibly impaired, or with an unlawful bodily alcohol content.
(ii) Section 625m.
(iii) Former section 625b.
(b) Negligent homicide, manslaughter, or murder resulting from the operation of a vehicle or an attempt to commit any of those crimes.
(c) Section 601d or 626(3) or (4).
(26) Except for purposes of the enhancement described in subsection (12)(b), only 1 violation or attempted violation of subsection (6), a local ordinance substantially corresponding to subsection (6), or a law of another state substantially corresponding to subsection (6) may be used as a prior conviction.
(27) If 2 or more convictions described in subsection (25) are convictions for violations arising out of the same transaction, only 1 conviction shall be used to determine whether the person has a prior conviction.
Compiler's Notes: Section 2 of Act 309 of 1982 provides: “All proceedings pending and all rights and liabilities existing, acquired, or incurred at the time this amendatory act takes effect are saved and may be consummated according to the law in force when they are commenced. This amendatory act shall not be construed to affect any prosecution pending or initiated before the effective date of this amendatory act, or initiated after the effective date of this amendatory act for an offense committed before that effective date.”
■ In 2012, a woman sued Dupuis, alleging he refused to let her use the restroom while she was in a jail cell — thus forcing her to urinate in her cell — and later "began to choke her" and began to call her vulgar names. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2013 because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient documents to the defense.
*Scroll down to bottom of page for Dupuis' law enforcement history*
Highland Park Officer Ronald Dupuis is in trouble—again. This time it is a lawsuit from 2 women claiming he detained them for 4 days without charging them. The 2 women, Rhianna Turner and Kera Hill are domestic partners, they are represented by attorney Robert Morris:
Morris says in September of 2013 – Turner was working as a uniformed Detroit Parking Enforcement Officer. While she was stopped in front of the old Detroit police headquarters at 1300 Beaubien, Hill showed up. They were playfully wrestling over a set of keys when a nearby by Sheriff’s deputy feared that Hill was assaulting Turner.
Officer Dupuis came in to see what was the problem. Well, that sounds reasonable.
Despite the couple’s explanations that were was no assault – Morris says Dupuis arrested them.
“The fact that he actually took them to Highland Park, which has no jurisdiction with anything that could have occurred in Detroit, and he was able to convince his supervisors, who were already skeptical and didn’t understand why my clients were locked up – he was actually able to override their authority and keep my clients for four days,” Morris says.
They were never charged with a crime – but Morris says getting locked up cost Turner her job with the city.
And here is Ronald Dupuis's history as a law enforcement officer, care of Detroit Free Press:
■ In 2012, a woman sued Dupuis, alleging he refused to let her use the restroom while she was in a jail cell — thus forcing her to urinate in her cell — and later "began to choke her" and began to call her vulgar names. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2013 because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient documents to the defense.
■ In 2004, while working as a Hamtramck police officer, Dupuis was sued by a man who alleged Dupuis wrongfully arrested him and had him jailed for no reason. The man was released without being charged. His lawsuit was settled for an undisclosed amount.
■ In 2006, Dupuis sued the city of Hamtramck after a female officer accused him of assaulting her with a Taser. He was fired as a result of the accusation, but was later acquitted on the assault charge. He ended up suing the city over his firing and its handling of the assault accusation. The case was settled.
■ In 2008, Dupuis sued the city of Hamtramck a second time over the Taser complaint, alleging the city had a duty to defend him in that lawsuit. That case was dismissed.
■ In 2012, Dupuis filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the city of Highland Park, alleging he was treated unfairly compared to his African American counterparts and that he was unfairly demoted in the police department. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2013.
Oh yeah, he resigned from the Southgate Police department back in the 2000s. It was in that same department he was reprimanded, in 1998, for allegedly assaulting a mentally disabled man...and stalking a woman, repeatedly pulling her over.
Innocent until proven guilty. But the police employment system that keeps him employed seems very guilty.
Ronald Dupuis, a police officer from Highland Park, Michigan, has a record of questionable -- and even outright bad -- behavior dating back to the 1980s. These decades of missteps don’t seem to be hampering his career, though.
With almost daily reports of brutality and fatal shootings of unarmed black people by police, activists in America are asking why officers so rarely face lasting consequences for their actions.
With almost daily reports of brutality and fatal shootings of unarmed black people by police, activists in America are asking why officers so rarely face lasting consequences for their actions. When Darren Wilson left his post with the Ferguson Police Department, crowdfunding efforts raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the man who killed unarmed teenager Michael Brown. Investigations into Wilson’s past revealed that he’d first been employed by a Missouri police force that was disbanded for corruption.
“Back in 2013, Mario Givens, an African American North Charleston man, had been ‘roughed up’ when Slager came to his door, demanding to be let in ‘as part of an investigation.’”
North Charleston Police have faced 46 federal lawsuits since 2000.
But few cops can match the checkered past of Sgt. Ronald Dupuis, the officer from Highland Park, Michigan, who remains employed despite a string of incidents that have followed him through multiple departments. Highland Park is the seventh police force to employ Dupuis.
A new lawsuit alleges that Dupuis held two women in jail without charges for four days. Shockingly, the incident didn’t even begin in Highland Park, where Dupuis is employed as a cop and where he allegedly imprisoned the two women, “Rhianna Turner and her domestic partner Kera Hill.” Instead, Dupuis is accused of intervening in an incident in Detroit.
In September 2013, a sheriff’s deputy witnessed the pair “playfully wrestling over a set of keys,” and intervened because he feared an assault had occurred. Although both women denied a crime had occurred, Dupuis arrived on the scene, arrested the two women, and took them to jail in nearby Highland Park. Though no charges were filed, Turner lost her job as a Detroit Parking Enforcement Officer.
“The video of the arrest, which was recorded by Detroit resident Emma Craig on Monday on the city’s northwest side and posted on Facebook, shows Dupuis striking the suspect several times while apparently trying to handcuff him and administering a final blow after Jackson’s hands were secured behind his back,” reported George Hunter in The Detroit News.
He was previously fired from the Hamtramck, Michigan, Police Department for using a taser on his own partner. Although a jury declined to convict him for it, courts refused to force the city to reinstate Dupuis, which is how he ended up employed by Highland Park.
Because there is a lack of national data on police violence in general, it is difficult to determine how often police face consequences for their crimes. But in 2013, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey estimated that 90 percent of officers fired from the Philadelphia Police Department force were later rehired through arbitration with police unions — even those accused of crimes including shoplifting and sexual assault.
A Michigan police officer with a string of lawsuits and accusations filed against him over the years - including Tasering his partner and assaulting a disabled man — has now been accused of arresting two women and holding them in jail without ever filing any charges.
Highland Park police officer Ronald Dupuis — already under investigation for beating a suspected car hijacker — has been accused by two women of arresting them and holding them in jail for four days without every charging them with a crime, according to WXYZ.
According to Robert Morris, attorney for Rhianna Turner and her domestic partner Kera Hill, Dupuis arrested the two women when they were playfully wrestling over a set of keys in front of the old Detroit police headquarters in 2013. Despite the women's insistence that they were not assaulting each other, Dupuis took them into custody before driving them to the Highland Park station where they were held in a cell for four days before being released without charges ever being filed.
"The fact that he actually took them to Highland Park, which has no jurisdiction with anything that could have occurred in Detroit, and he was able to convince his supervisors, who were already skeptical and didn't understand why my clients were locked up - he was actually able to override their authority and keep my clients for four days," Morris explained.
According to the attorney, Turner lost her job with the city as a Detroit Parking Enforcement Officer because of her jail stay.
Dupuis, already under investigation for the beating of the alleged car hijacker earlier this year, has been in the spotlight for the past decade, having worked for seven different police departments, leaving either under a cloud or in a flurry of lawsuits.
According to the Detroit Free Press, since 2004 Dupuis has been accused of unlawfully locking up suspects, choking a woman in her jail cell, stalking a woman, and assault, — including using a Taser on his partner.
In 2012, a woman sued Dupuis, alleging he refused to let her use the restroom while she was in a jail cell — thus forcing her to urinate in her cell — and later "began to choke her" and began to call her vulgar names. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2013 because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient documents to the defense.
In 2004, while working as a Hamtramck police officer, Dupuis was sued by a man who alleged Dupuis wrongfully arrested him and had him jailed for no reason. The man was released without being charged. His lawsuit was settled for an undisclosed amount.
In 2006, Dupuis sued the city of Hamtramck after a female officer accused him of assaulting her with a Taser. He was fired as a result of the accusation, but was later acquitted on the assault charge. He ended up suing the city over his firing and its handling of the assault accusation. The case was settled.
In 2008, Dupuis sued the city of Hamtramck a second time over the Taser complaint, alleging the city had a duty to defend him in that lawsuit. That case was dismissed.
In 2012, Dupuis filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the city of Highland Park, alleging he was treated unfairly compared to his African American counterparts and that he was unfairly demoted in the police department. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2013.
Dupuis has also sued several of the various police departments that have employed him, claiming discrimination, failure to defend him against accusations from the public, and for terminating him.
In 2012 , Dupuis accidentally shot himself in the leg while standing outside a jail cell at the Highland Park station.
Protest Jan. 14 at GPP headquarters: “No Justice, No Peace, Stop Racist Police;” end federal, state tax funding of multi-jurisdictional police forces
Highland Park cop involved in Andrew Jackson, Jr. beating has long record of assaults
DETROIT – Detroit Police Chief James Craig has washed his hands of involvement in the brutal beating of Black Detroiter Andrew Jackson, Jr., 51, by white Highland Park, Harper Woods, and Grosse Pointe Park cops Jan. 12, saying no Detroit officer was involved. The police claim Jackson carjacked a woman and her two grandchildren at gunpoint.
But the question arises: why have Craig and previous chiefs allowed suburban cops free rein in Detroit for years?
The earliest news accounts of Jackson’s beating, caught on cellphone videotape by Detroiter Emma Craig, implied the carjacking took place in Grosse Pointe Park. However, the carjacking he is alleged to have committed took place far from that 99 percent east side white suburb, in west-side Detroit near Fenkell and Evergreen.
“You don’t become a criminal to catch a criminal,” said Ron Scott of the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality, Inc. during a protest outside the Grosse Pointe Park police headquarters Jan. 14.
“Those cops violated their own standards of safety when they beat Mr. Jackson before searching him. That beating had no place in a civil society; people are innocent until they are proven guilty. It’s sickening the Grosse Pointe Park Police Chief said it was justified, and that Chief Craig cares so little about Detroiters that he said he isn’t concerned about Detroit cops not being residents, and allows suburban cops into Detroit.”
Jackson’s attorney, Ben Gonek, told the Detroit Free Press that Jackson has a “serious eye injury,” and that the police were guilty of excessive force. The videotape shows Jackson being punched and kicked on the ground by two cops, as he calls out imploringly, “Jesus.” An officer kneels on his back and says, “What did you say? Jesus? Are you calling Jesus? Don’t you dare! Don’t you f—king dare!”
The officers then bump fists to congratulate each other, and the Harper Woods officer says “that’s a justified ass whoopin.” (See full video with commentary below.)
Scott expressed doubt about Grosse Pointe Park Police Chief David Hiller’s statement that the cops found a gun in Jackson;s waistband. The full version of the nine-minute videotape, cut short by most news outlets, contradicts that. It shows a white female and a white male cop stand Jackson up to search him, beginning from his feet on up. The white male declares as he is halfway up Jackson’s leg, “Oh, HERE’s the gun.” There is a slight note of sarcasm in his voice.
Jackson is being held by Grosse Pointe Park police on parole violation matters. His record includes four very long sentences imposed for one incident in 2003 involving armed robbery and fleeing police in Oakland County, two cases of receiving stolen property in 1995 and 1997, and two other “inactive” 1999 sentences of fleeing police and receiving stolen property. The Michigan Department of Corrections website says he absconded from parole April 3, 2014.
The Wayne County Prosecutor’s office has not yet approved a warrant for his arrest on the carjacking incident. The victim of that incident said in two interviews that she supports police actions in beating Jackson, although she does not say whether she identified him in a line-up as the man who carjacked her.
Since the protest, the Detroit Free Press has named Highland Park Sgt. Ronald Dupuis as one of the cops. Their article says he has a long history of assaults in various suburban departments, including tasering a female partner, beating a disabled man, refusing to allow a woman in a jail cell access to a bathroom, forcing her to urinate in the cell, and stalking another woman, repeatedly pulling her over. He was fired from the Hamtramck Police Department for the taser incident, and resigned rather than being fired from the Southgate Police Department for the incidents involving the women.
The protest was attended by Dawud Walid, Executive Director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI), and over a dozen others.
They included Eric Taylor, who told VOD he was the victim of a carjacking in Grosse Pointe Park on June 12 last year. “I had my wife call the police for help,” Taylor said.
“My friend and I were at a gas station getting a sandwich when my car was taken as I walked back to it. When the GPP police got there, they cut me off when I was explaining, and told me I matched the description of a carjacking suspect. Then they threated to “blow my f—king head off,” told me I was nothing but an animal, called me a n—-r, and told me if I sued they would come and kill my family.”
He showed VOD a cellphone photo taken by his daughter of his head a few days after the beating. He said he still suffers from headaches and other effects of the beating.
Grosse Pointe Park police were involved earlier in a racist incident where they forced a developmentally disabled Black Detroiter, who used to go into the Pointes to collect bottles, to sing and perform for them, then circulated several cellphone videos of the actions.
Grosse Pointe Park founded A.C.T.I.O.N. (Arresting Car Thieves in Our Neighborhoods) about ten years ago, using an initial $350,000 grant from the state of Michigan and funds from state car insurance companies. It originally included only the Wayne County Sheriff’s Department, and police departments from Grosse Pointe Park, Grosse Pointe City, and Harper Woods. Since that time, other departments including Warren and Detroit have been added according to news reports.
Hiller included names of the Chiefs from all those departments on his press release on the incident, although Craig said he had not seen it.
Detroit has its own task force, however. The Detroit One Partnership announced the formation of a carjacking task force in April 2014, including the Detroit Police Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshal’s Service, Homeland Security Investigations, Michigan State Police, Michigan Department of Corrections, Wayne County Sheriff’s Department, Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office and U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Emma Craig, who videotaped Jackson’s beating, said she also saw officers at the scene with I.C.E. (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) jackets.
In addition to the Detroit One and ACTION Task Forces, the State of Michigan has run an anti-carjacking task force called H.E.A.T. (Help Eliminate Auto Thefts) for the past 23 years.
Numerous protesters of the Michael Brown killing in Ferguson, MO. Aug. 9 have condemned federal provision of military equipment including tanks, assault weapons, flash-bang grenades, flak vests, and other equipment to city police to carry out raids like the one that resulted in the death of seven-year-old Detroiter Aiyana Jones on May 16, 2010, and assaults on anti-police brutality marches.
“We resent that our public tax dollars are being used to fund such programs,” Scott said. Others noted the money would be far better spent on programs to provide jobs, end homelessness, build decent schools, and repair the infrastructures of the nations’ cities.
One of the police officers involved in an arrest caught on video has had a career embroiled in controversy, with accusations of using a Taser on a former partner and assaulting a mentally disabled man. The video, which surfaced on Facebook and is now under investigation by the Michigan State Police, shows police punching, kicking and handcuffing a 51-year-old parole absconder, who is accused in the carjacking of a mother and her two children Monday. One police official has called the officers' actions on Detroit's west side "proper." One of the officers in the video is Highland Park Sgt. Ron Dupuis, Highland Park city attorney Todd Perkins confirmed to the Free Press today. According to U.S. District Court records, Dupuis — listed as Ronald Dupuis II — is no stranger to the courts, though he has never been convicted of any crimes. Over the last decade, his tumultuous law enforcement career has triggered a half-dozen civil suits in U.S. District Court — half of them he filed himself over employment disputes; the others involve police brutality accusations. An attorney who has previously represented Dupuis in civil lawsuits, could not be immediately reached for comment today. His legal troubles include: ■ In 2012, a woman sued Dupuis, alleging he refused to let her use the restroom while she was in a jail cell — thus forcing her to urinate in her cell — and later "began to choke her" and began to call her vulgar names. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2013 because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient documents to the defense. ■ In 2004, while working as a Hamtramck police officer, Dupuis was sued by a man who alleged Dupuis wrongfully arrested him and had him jailed for no reason. The man was released without being charged. His lawsuit was settled for an undisclosed amount. ■ In 2006, Dupuis sued the city of Hamtramck after a female officer accused him of assaulting her with a Taser. He was fired as a result of the accusation, but was later acquitted on the assault charge. He ended up suing the city over his firing and its handling of the assault accusation. The case was settled. ■ In 2008, Dupuis sued the city of Hamtramck a second time over the Taser complaint, alleging the city had a duty to defend him in that lawsuit. That case was dismissed. ■ In 2012, Dupuis filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the city of Highland Park, alleging he was treated unfairly compared to his African American counterparts and that he was unfairly demoted in the police department. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2013. Also, the Free Press reported in 2006 that, in 1998, Dupuis was reprimanded by the Southgate Police Department after being accused of assaulting a mentally disabled man. Also while in Southgate, Dupuis was accused of stalking a woman and repeatedly pulling her over. He resigned from the department after being told he would be fired. On Monday, officers with ACTION, a stolen vehicle task force, arrested a man suspected in a carjacking that occurred earlier that day. Police have not named the man, but the Michigan Department of Corrections identified him as Andrew Jackson, Jr., who, according to the state's online offender system, was sentenced to prison in 2004 on charges of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, assault with intent to rob while armed and fleeting police. According to the corrections department he absconded from parole in April 2014. The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office said today it received a warrant request for a 51-year-old man, whose name was not provided, in connection with a carjacking that occurred on Evergreen on Monday. According to the office, the warrant is being reviewed and a charging decision has not yet been made. Attorney Ben Gonek, who said he is representing Jackson, said his client has a "serious eye injury." Gonek declined to discuss the carjacking accusations. Of the arrest, he said "it's pretty outrageous." "There's no doubt in my mind that it was excessive force," said Gonek, who previously sued Dupuis, his partner and the city of Hamtramck on behalf of a man who said he was beaten during a traffic stop in 2002. The lawsuit was settled for $20,000. The task force that made the arrest in Monday is made up of officers from Detroit, Grosse Pointe Park, Highland Park and Harper Woods. Detroit police have said none of their officers were involved in the incident. Detroit police spokesman Sgt. Michael Woody said Tuesday that the officers involved were from Highland Park and Grosse Pointe Park. On Tuesday, Chief David Hiller, with the Grosse Pointe Park Department of Public Safety, told the Free Press that the actions of the officers in the arrest were "proper." Hiller declined to comment when reached today. Highland Park Police Chief Kevin Coney could not be immediately reached for comment. Highland Park city attorney Todd Perkins said that, in addition to cooperating with the state police investigation, Highland Park is also looking at the arrest, which has drawn scrutiny since a citizen posted a video on Facebook. In the video, one officer yells at the man after he calls for "Jesus," telling him "Don't you dare," and another officer can be heard saying "that's a justified ass whooping." Perkins said the city will look into the incident. "I represent the people of the city of Highland Park and, in representing the people, you have to give them transparency," he said. The incident drew out about a dozen protesters earlier today, who gathered outside of the Grosse Pointe Park police headquarters. "This is the kind of thing that can ignite something," said Ron Scott, with the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality. "We're here on a peace mission. We're saying, 'If you don't deal with us, then there are a lot of people out here who are not gonna take the time to demonstrate.'" "We also call for criminal and civil penalties for officers who have engaged in these actions," Scott said in the statement, adding, "We are calling for suspension of these officers until this matter is resolved."
Officer Ronald Dupuis' past law enforcement history:
Sometime after April 02, 1999: Officer Ronald Dupuis was hired by the Highland Police Department [after resigning from the Southgate PD, to avoid being fired for stalking incident].
Nov. 7, 2000: Officer Ronald Dupuis was laid off by the Highland Park Public Safety department.
Sometime after November 07, 2000: Officer Ronald Dupuis was hired by the Hamtramck PD, after being laid off by the Highland PD.
April 21, 2002: Officer Ronald Dupuis was accused of assaulting a man during a traffic stop. Hamtramck PD. Resulted in a lawsuit, which was settled for $20,000 on November 05, 2005. Dupuis was not fired from the Hamtramack PD. for this incident.
2004: Hamtramck police officer Dupuis was sued by a man who alleged Dupuis wrongfully arrested him and had him jailed for no reason. The man was released without being charged. His lawsuit was settled for an undisclosed amount.
Nov. 3, 2005: Officer Ronald Dupuis was accused of discharging a Taser stun gun and striking his female partner, Officer Prema Graham, in the leg with the weapon. [Hamtramack PD]
Sometime after November 10, 2005: Officer Ronald Dupuis won legal challenges related to the tasering incident Officer Prema Graham, and the Hamtramck PD's firing of him.
Sometime after November 10, 2005: Officer Ronald Dupuis returned to duty at the Highland Police Department [previously laid off from department in November 2000].
Dec. 7, 2005: Officer Ronald Dupuis charged with misdemeanor assault and battery in connection with the Taser incident.
June 16, 2006: Officer Ronald Dupuis won an unemployment claim dispute against the City of Hamtramck for their firing of him after the November 2005 taser incident Officer Prema Graham. Chief of Police also refused to reinstate Dupuis.
November 01, 2006: Officer Ronald Dupuis filed a lawsuit against the City of Hamtramck: Civil Rights / Employment. Police Chief refused to reinstate him. [November 2005 taser incident of Officer Graham].
January 2007: Officer Ronald Dupuis filed suit to be reinstated to Hamtramck PD, following his being terminated after November 2005 taser incident against Officer Prema Graham.
May 22, 2012: Officer Ronald Dupuis' gun "accidently" went off outside the department's cell block. Dupuis was shot in the leg. Sources at the Highland PD said there would be no disciplinary action taken against Dupuis.
September 19, 2013: Highland Park Officer Ronald Dupuis arrested uniformed / on duty Detroit Parking Enforcement Officer Rhianna Turner and her girlfriend Kera Hill, in front of Detroit PD. Dupuis transported them back to Highland PD and had the women jailed for four days - without charges. Turner lost her job due to the unlawful arrest and imprisonment.
January 12, 2015:An online video from Emma Craig surfaced, showing Officer Dupuis beating a handcuffed Andrew Jackson during an arrest. "Highland Park city attorney Todd Perkins said he's aware of Dupuis' checkered past, although he said he will "draw no conclusions" from it." In April 2015, Highland Park Police Chief Kevin Coney stated that Officer Dupuis was not facing discipline for the beating of Andrew Jackson.
January 14, 2015: Michigan State Police investigation of Officer Ronald Dupuis and other officers for the January beating of Andrew Jackson. Officer Dupuis was not suspended from duty during this criminal investigation.
February 09, 2015: Officer Ronald Dupuis was shot in the leg during a raid. Officer Dupuis was still on active duty despite an MSP investigation of the beating of Andrew Jackson during a January 2015 arrest.
February 13, 2015: Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy began criminal investigation of Officer Ronald Dupuis and other officers for the January 2015 beating of Andrew Jackson. Officer Dupuis was not suspended from duty during this criminal investigation. "According to the office, it received a warrant request from the Michigan State Police, which investigated the arrest of Andrew Jackson Jr. on Jan. 12 by officers...One of the officers shown in the video making the arrest is Highland Park Sgt. Ron Dupuis..."
April 15, 2015: Lawsuit filed by Rhianna Turner and Kera Hill against Officer Ronald Dupuis for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment [September 2013]
April 20, 2015: Officer Dupuis cleared by Prosecutor Kym Worthy of criminal charges in the January 2015 beating of Andrew Jackson. "Worthy did not defend some of the officers’ conduct. She said some of Sgt. Dupuis’s behavior was improper and warrants possible punishment from his superiors. Still, Worthy said, charges aren’t warranted."
April 20, 2015: Highland Park Police Chief Kevin Coney announced that Officer Ronald Dupuis was not facing disciplinary action for the January beating of Andrew Jackson.
