Civilian Appeals Board affirms Internal Affairs’ 'not sustained' findings in March 2025 traffic-stop appeal

The Civilian Appeals Board affirmed Internal Affairs’ determination that the allegations against Officer Siddharth Manava were not sustained, concluding there was insufficient evidence in the record to overturn the internal investigation’s disposition.

The board heard a detailed summary from an Office of Police Accountability representative who said that on March 27, 2025 the complainant—recorded in OPA materials as Jerome Bridal and who later spoke at public comment identifying himself as "Bird"—asserted three allegations: racial profiling and harassment, an illegal search without consent or probable cause, and discourteous, unprofessional treatment. "On 03/27/2025, Mister Jerome Bridal alleged he was stopped by officer Siddarth Manava while parked near Sheldon Avenue and Oak Street Southeast in Grand Rapids," the OPA representative told the board during the hearing.

GRPD investigators described the department’s review of body-worn camera, dash camera and dispatch data and said Internal Affairs found insufficient evidence to support racial-profiling or improper-search allegations. Sergeant Kyle Pressler, who testified for Internal Affairs, described the department’s evidence and investigative practice, saying that when an officer activates a camera "it goes back 30 seconds and captures the 30 seconds before," and that GPS/CAD tracking in this case showed the officer was behind the complainant for approximately a minute. Pressler also said that officers may use multiple factors together—furtive movements, vehicle condition, prior contacts—to reach a reasonable-suspicion threshold for a frisk.

Board members split in deliberations. Several members said the record had gaps—missing GPS logs, dispatch or LEIN/MDOC checks and inconsistent notations between incident reports and video—that made some aspects of the officer’s account difficult to verify. Others urged the board to apply its legal standard: whether the administrative record contained "competent, material and substantial evidence" to support Internal Affairs’ finding. Legal counsel reminded the board that the Appeals Board’s role is to review the internal disposition under that standard, not to retry the criminal or civil elements of the encounter.

On the specific disposition questions, the board first voted that there was sufficient information for it to make a determination. The board then voted to affirm Internal Affairs’ finding that the impartial-policing allegation was not sustained. On the improper-search/frisk allegation the board again affirmed the Internal Affairs disposition (the motion passed with one member recorded as voting no), concluding the available record did not provide a preponderance of evidence to reverse IA’s determination.

During public comment after the votes, the complainant said the contact was improper and that officers used excessive force during the pat-down. He told the board, "I was legally searched ... he grabbed my balls," and urged the board to reconsider. Board members said they had heard the complaint and emphasized that affirmation of a not-sustained finding does not mean the board endorsed every action taken by officers; several members urged continued training on de-escalation and clearer documentation of investigative records.

The board’s action affirms the internal investigative finding but also highlighted procedural issues staff agreed to address: including clarifying what records accompany appeals (GPS/CAD logs, plate-audit records) and whether additional incident details should be filed routinely for board review. The matter is closed administratively; no disciplinary reversal was ordered by the Civilian Appeals Board.

The Appeals Board will include the discussion in its minutes and staff said they will follow up about packet completeness and whether policy clarifications or additional training are warranted.