Court of Claims hears arguments in Cage v. Michigan State Police over who owned undercover vehicle used in police operation

Judge James Redford took under advisement arguments Thursday in Cage v. Michigan State Police, a dispute over whether the State is entitled to governmental immunity for the death of Samuel Sterling and whether the motor-vehicle exception to immunity applies.

The hearing centered on competing claims about ownership and exclusive use of an undercover vehicle used during a fugitive-task-force operation. Mary Waddell, Assistant Attorney General representing the Michigan State Police, told the court the record shows the vehicle was used for federal-marshals operations and is not state-owned. "This vehicle is to be used exclusive exclusively for marshal service operations, so a federal use, not a state use," Waddell said, arguing the State is therefore entitled to immunity and the case should be dismissed.

Plaintiff counsel Christopher Desmond said the complaint alleges the State owned the vehicle and that testimony from Sergeant Avery and other records create triable issues that require discovery. Desmond cited case law allowing multiple forms of ownership under the statute and said depositions are needed to flesh out who had daily control and access to the vehicle: "we're dealing with the loss of a life of an individual who was supposed to be taken into custody peacefully and without issue," he said, urging a fuller evidentiary record before disposing of the case.

The core legal question presented to the court was whether a factual dispute exists about ownership under the motor-vehicle provisions (discussed by counsel in reference to MCL 257.37 and related authority) and whether that dispute prevents summary disposition. Waddell urged the court to focus on what evidence the plaintiff has placed before the court now, saying the affidavits submitted do not create a genuine issue of material fact about exclusive use. "MSP is immune, and this case should be dismissed," she said.

Judge Redford noted he had read the briefs and cited cases and that the motion had been pending for an extended period. He told counsel he would take the matter under advisement and deliver a written opinion on the motion by mid-December: "You'll have an opinion in order on this motion ... no later December 15." He also said a two-week trial previously scheduled for Dec. 8–19 was settled on the record the day before.

The hearing did not resolve the legal question; the judge's forthcoming written opinion will determine whether discovery should proceed or the case will be dismissed on immunity grounds. The court recessed at 09:37.