Kalamazoo resident appeals finding that officer did not commit assault during late-night crowd clearance

Ronald Gillum appealed to the Citizens Public Safety Review and Appeals Board on May 13, saying a Kalamazoo Public Safety officer pushed his hand and phone during a late-night attempt to clear a parking-lot gathering and that the action should be treated as an assault.

The appeal challenges the chief's finding that the first allegation against PSO Joel West was "unfounded"; the chief sustained a separate allegation of unprofessional conduct. Inspector Chuck Mason of the Office of Professional Standards presented the investigation to the board, saying the office reviewed body-worn camera footage, interviews and applicable law before concluding the push did not meet the criminal elements for assault under Michigan law.

Why it matters: the board will make a recommendation to the city manager, who has final authority to sustain or amend the chief's findings. The board said it will move to closed deliberation after presentations and submit a written recommendation within 14 business days; the city manager will notify the appellant within 20 business days of the hearing.

Inspector Mason summarized the Office of Professional Standards's review, saying investigators found the contact was not forceful or done with criminal intent. "Basic contact between one person and the other does not constitute an assault," Mason told the board, citing the legal requirement that an unlawful touching be accompanied by the requisite intent. The presentation referenced the Michigan Criminal Law and Procedure Manual and the court decision People v. Davis in explaining intent requirements.

Mason also described the operational context: PSO West responded in the early morning of May 5, 2024, to a report of a large crowd in a parking lot. Mason said the officer used a horn and siren to clear the lot and that a subsequent exchange with Gillum escalated when Gillum raised his phone to record. The office determined the officer's conduct amounted to unprofessional behavior but not a criminal assault.

Gillum told the board he was woken by the officer's public-address horn and went to the scene to see what was happening. He said he raised his phone to record and that "he smacked my hand down," and that he disagreed with a finding that the contact was "not an unfriendly touch." At the podium he said, "I didn't put my hands on him," and repeated that he believes the officer should not have put hands on him.

Mason played the officer's body-worn camera audio for the board; the recording contains the officer saying, "get your phone out of my face," language Mason cited as the officer's description of the encounter. Mason told board members the video and interviews supported the conclusion that the contact was minimal and intended to create space, not to injure.

Board members pursued clarifying questions about whether the officer closed the distance, whether the officer felt threatened, and whether the officer had room to re-enter his cruiser. Mason said the cruiser door was open and that the officer could have exited the interaction by entering the vehicle, but he also described why an officer on duty at 2 a.m. might seek additional personal space while working in a previously crowded scene.

The appellant and the inspector agreed that the episode had precedents: Mason told the board that Mr. Gillum has a history of filing complaints after confrontations with officers and that similar patterns were considered in the investigation. The hearing also noted a technical difficulty in the livestream audio during portions of the inspector's first presentation; the inspector repeated key elements on the record.

Next steps: after the board's closed deliberation the members will provide a written recommendation to the city manager within 14 business days; the city manager will issue the final determination and notify the appellant within 20 business days.