Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Misconduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter tells Marion council police fabricated traffic citation, urges review of body-camera retention
Summary
A public commenter alleged Marion police fabricated an illegal-turn-signal citation, said officers called him a liar and that body- and vehicle-camera footage was deleted before his court date; he urged a fuller investigation, possible civilian oversight and a change to the department's video-retention policy.
A public commenter told the Marion City Council that he was cited for an alleged illegal turn/turn-signal violation after exercising his First Amendment rights and accused Marion police of fabricating statements and deleting body-camera and vehicle video before his court date.
The commenter, who spoke during the meeting’s public-comment period, said the incident and related traffic stop happened on March 12 and that he has filed for a jury trial. He said an officer called him and repeatedly made false statements; when he corrected those statements the officer called him “a liar,” the commenter said. He also said he filed a motion for discovery and was told requested video and audio had already been deleted.
"How can we have a fair day in court if the video and audio that the police officers are supposed to have is being deleted? How is that not obstruction of justice?" the commenter asked the council.
He urged the council to take the allegations seriously, to investigate further and to consider policy changes including revising any practice that allows deletion of body-camera or vehicle camera footage within 90 days of an incident. He also recommended looking at civilian oversight models, saying similar positions created in other cities were born from tragedies and helped build public trust.
Council members did not take immediate action on the commenter’s requests during the meeting. The commenter said he possesses a video recording on his phone and that he has the court case number; he also said he has reached out to the city and found the internal investigation he received to be inadequate because it relied primarily on the officer’s account.
The council’s formal response at the meeting was limited to listening: the mayor thanked the speaker and moved on to the next agenda item. The meeting record shows the commenter intends to pursue the matter in court and asked the council for an official investigation and policy review.
Next steps: the speaker said his court date is scheduled for March 12 and that he will pursue a jury trial; the council did not announce any immediate follow-up or directive to staff at this meeting.
