Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances $150,000 settlement in illegal-search claim as members press for camera accountability
Summary
The committee moved a $150,000 settlement tied to an alleged illegal search and seizure to formal review; Detroit Police risk manager described routine camera checks but acknowledged occasional activation or syncing failures, and councilmembers pressed for clearer penalties and enforcement.
The Internal Operations Committee advanced a $150,000 settlement in a lawsuit alleging an illegal search and seizure and pressed city officials for clearer accountability on body-worn and vehicle camera procedures.
The settlement request (line item 8.28) was described to the committee as a response to conflicting testimony between an officer’s account and gas-station video. "These are very difficult cases," said Attorney Anderson of the Law Department, adding that the combination of facts and video evidence made a jury outcome uncertain and that "this is a reasonable settlement." The committee moved the item to formal with a recommendation to approve after there were no objections.
Patrick Emery, executive manager for risk management at the Detroit Police Department, told the council the department inspects cameras at the beginning of every shift and requires officers to verify body-worn and vehicle cameras are working. "At the end of the shift, they are hooked up to the base that allows for both the video to be downloaded to our servers ... as well as to charge them up for use the following shift," Emery said, while noting occasional problems such as syncing issues or devices needing manual activation.
Councilmember Angela Wood Callaway said the incident — and others like it — were ‘‘scary’’ and raised public-safety concerns. "We're going to settle for $150,000 for illegal search and seizure," Callaway said, adding that failure to capture video can leave residents vulnerable and highlighted the need for consistent enforcement when equipment is not activated.
Emery said failure to capture an event can lead to progressive discipline, from informal counseling to, in severe or repeated cases, termination. He said the department will provide its appearance and body-camera policies to the council.
The Law Department also said it would supply the committee with more background on the officer involved and his history with the department. The committee’s next step is the formal calendar, where the settlement will be considered for final approval or modification.
The committee’s discussion also prompted members to request a memo and written policy on camera expectations and penalties for noncompliance. No vote on the settlement was recorded in the meeting; the chair announced the motion would be sent to the formal docket with the committee’s recommendation.
