McCaw Lawsuit

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 1 of 40
Pg ID 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL T. McCAW
Plaintiff,
Case No.
Hon.
-vCHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WATERFORD,

a Michigan Municipal Corporation; WATERFORD
TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR GARY WALL,
WATERFORD TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE SUE
CAMILLERI, WATERFORD TOWNSHIP
TRUSTEE MARGARET BIRCH, WATERFORD
TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE ANTHONY
BARTOLOTTA, WATERFORD TOWNSHIP
TRUSTEE JULIE BROWN, WATERFORD
TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE KAREN JOLIAT,
and WATERFORD TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE
DONNA F. KELLEY, individually and in their
official capacities
Defendants.
TODD F. FLOOD (P58555)
LAWRENCE B. SHULMAN (P45075)
Flood Law PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
401 North Main Street
Royal Oak, Michigan 48067
Tel: (248) 547-1032
Fax: (248) 547-0140
tflood@floodlaw.com
Teresa J. Gorman (P61001)

363 W. Big Beaver Rd Ste 440
Troy, MI 48084-5242
Tel: (248) 763-6943
terigorman@aol.com
Co-counsel for Plaintiff
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

1
Pg ID 2
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Daniel T. McCaw, by and through counsel, Flood
Law PLLC, and for his Complaint against the above-named Defendants, states the
following:
JURISDICTION AND PARTIES
1.
This is an action for deprivation of Plaintiff's rights under the United
States Constitution, under the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act, the Michigan
Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and for wrongful discharge, defamation and intentional
infliction of emotional distress under Michigan common-law, arising out of plaintiffs
employment relationship with Defendant Charter Township of Waterford
(Waterford Township).
2.
This action is brought pursuant to 42 USC 1983 and 1988, and the
First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is

conferred upon this court by 28 U.S.C. 1331and 1343, this being an action seeking
redress for the violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional and civil rights.
3.
Plaintiff further invokes this courts supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant
to 28 USC 1367, over any and all state law claims and against all parties that are so
related to claims in this action, within the original jurisdiction of this court, that they
form part of the same case or controversy.
4.
Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c), in that all parties are
residents and/or administratively located within the Eastern District of Michigan, and
Pg ID 3
the events giving rise to this claim occurred within the boundaries of the Eastern
District of Michigan.
PARTIES
5.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Daniel T. McCaw was a
resident of the Township of Waterford, within the Eastern District of Michigan.

6.
Defendant Charter Township of Waterford (Waterford Township) is a
municipal entity existing under the laws of the State of Michigan and is located within
the Eastern District of Michigan.
7.
Defendant Gary Wall, during all relevant times, was the Township
Supervisor and a member of the Board of Trustees for Waterford Township. Upon
information and belief, Defendant Wall resides within the Eastern District of
Michigan.
8.
Defendant Sue Camilleri, during all relevant times, was the Township
Clerk and a member of the Board of Trustees for Waterford Township. Upon
information and belief, Defendant Camilleri resides within the Eastern District of
Michigan.
9.
Defendant Margaret Birch, during all relevant times, was the Township
Treasurer and a member of the Board of Trustees for Waterford Township. Upon
information and belief, Defendant Wall resides within the Eastern District of
Michigan.
10.
Pg ID 4
Defendant Anthony M. Bartolotta during all relevant times, was a
member of the Board of Trustees for Waterford Township. Upon information and
belief, Defendant Bartolotta resides within the Eastern District of Michigan.
11.
Defendant Julie Brown during all relevant times, was a member of the
Board of Trustees for Waterford Township. Upon information and belief, Defendant
Brown resides within the Eastern District of Michigan.
12.
Defendant Karen Joliat during all relevant times, was a member of the
Board of Trustees for Waterford Township. Upon information and belief, Defendant
Joliat resides within the Eastern District of Michigan.
13.
Defendant Donna F. Kelley during all relevant times, was a member of
the Board of Trustees for Waterford Township. Upon information and belief,
Defendant Kelley resides within the Eastern District of Michigan.
14.
Michigan law provides, pursuant to MCL 42.5, that all legislative
authority and powers for a charter township are vested in a township board of seven
members, composed of the supervisor, township clerk, township treasurer and four
trustees who are electors in the township. In Waterford Township, the township
board is known as the Board of Trustees.
15.
The events giving rise to this cause of action occurred within the Eastern
District of Michigan, and this matter is otherwise within the jurisdiction of the court.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Chief McCaws Relationship with the Police Officers Union
4
16.
Pg ID 5
Until his termination in March 2015, Plaintiff Daniel T. McCaw was
employed as the Chief of the Waterford Township Police Department. Chief McCaw
served Waterford Township and its citizens effectively, honorably and heroically,
while rising from the ranks of police officer to Chief of Police, over the course of
three decades.
17.
Throughout the course of his employment with Waterford Township,
Chief McCaw performed his job in a manner that was exemplary.

18.
Chief McCaw demanded excellence and accountability from the
members of his police department, and the demands he placed upon his police force
in order to achieve that standard sometimes placed him at odds with their union.
Police officers in the Township were represented by the Waterford Township Police
Officers Association (WTPOA), an affiliate of the Michigan Association of Police.
19.
Prior to December, 2014, Waterford Township police officers who were
members of the WTPOA, were eligible for defined benefit pensions upon retirement.
20.
In early 2014, Waterford Township attempted to negotiate an agreement
with the WTPOA, to change the retirement plans for newly hired officers from
defined benefits to defined contributions, and to eliminate retiree healthcare, even
though a collective bargaining agreement had been signed. The cost savings from such
changes were projected to eventually be in the millions of dollars on an annual basis,
in future years.
21.
Pg ID 6
When the negotiations proved unsuccessful, the Township asked for
mediation with the union, and took the position that retirement benefits remained
open for future negotiation at the time that the last collective bargaining agreement
was signed. By August 15, 2014, the Township had been informed that their position
had been rejected, and the collective bargaining agreement, including the defined
benefit pension provisions, was considered to be closed for negotiations as of the date
it was signed. The only way that the pension and healthcare provisions could be
renegotiated was with the assent of the union to enter into further negotiations.
22.
In early 2014, Defendant Wall, Defendant Camilleri and Defendant
Bartolotta had each indicated to Chief McCaw that WTPOA leaders said the union
would only discuss renegotiating the retirement provisions for new hires, if the
Township found a way to get rid of the Police Chief.
The Union Thinks it has Spotted an Opportunity
23.
At approximately 11:15 p.m. on July 19, 2014, Chief McCaw was driving
back to his home in Waterford Township, while off-duty. As he approached the

intersection of M-59 and Voorheis Road, his attention was drawn to campaign signs
posted at an abandoned gas station. To his dismay, he saw that a sign supporting the
upcoming police millage proposal had been placed in an area that was not approved
for the posting of elections signs under the Townships zoning ordinance. He also
noticed that other election signs had been placed in the same prohibited area.
24.
Pg ID 7
Waterford Township Zoning Ordinance 2-510, subsection (f) states
that [n]o election sign shall be placed closer than 20 feet from the adjoining street
roadway. Waterford Township Zoning Ordinance 2-403 makes unlawful the
placement of any item or materials which screens visibility in such areas requiring
clear vision for traffic.
25.
Chief McCaw was both authorized and sworn to uphold the laws and
ordinances of the Township, as well as the constitutions and laws of the State of
Michigan and the United States.
26.
Chief McCaw pulled into the parking lot, and removed the unlawfully
placed signs from a strip of grass located between the road and the paved portion of
the gas station. The signs were in violation of the Township ordinance because they
were clearly less than 20 feet from the adjoining roadway.
27.
Pursuant to policy, practice and ordinance in Waterford Township,
election signs removed because of improper placement are taken to the Department
of Public Works, where they are stored for retrieval, or disposed of if not retrieved.
Chief McCaw placed the signs he removed on July 19, 2014 into the fenced area of
the Department of Public Works, where such signs are routinely stored.
28.
While Chief McCaw was removing the signs, on-duty Police Officer
Joseph Quaiatto activated his overhead lights and pulled his patrol car into the
parking lot at the gas station, after he saw a person removing election signs from a
distance. Chief McCaw had previously advised his officers to keep a general lookout
7
Pg ID 8
for people stealing political signs. Once Officer Quaiatto realized that the person he
pulled up on was Chief McCaw, he engaged in a short conversation with him and then
left the area. The encounter was recorded automatically on Officer Quaiattos in-car
video system, which had been triggered when the cars overhead lights were activated.
29.
One of the other signs removed by Chief McCaw, when he removed the
vote yes sign, opposed the upcoming millage. That sign had been placed by
township resident Kyle McGrath.
30.
Video recorded by the police in-car video systems is automatically
uploaded to a secure evidentiary video system, when patrol cars arrive back at the
Township Police Department.
31.
Officer Quaiatto and Chief McCaw had disagreements in the past over
job performance.
32.
Later investigation revealed that between July 22 and August 13, 2014
the video from Officer Quaiattos patrol car was reviewed in the library of the Police
Department on at least four occasions, and that other officers accessed the video
using Officer Quaiattos password.
33.
Defendant Trustee Bartolotta later told Chief McCaw that Gary Wall
had indicated he was approached by a member of the police officer union, in July,
who said that he had the chief on video stealing a campaign sign. Defendant
Bartolotta said that when he asked Defendant Wall what he was going to do, Wall said
Pg ID 9
he wasnt going to do anything until the upcoming election, and he was not sure if
hed do anything after that point.
34.
The election regarding the police millage renewal proposal was held on
August 5, 2014. At stake was more than $2.8 million in funding. The millage renewal
passed with 74% of the vote.
Try, and Try Again
35.
As of August 15, 2014, the Townships efforts to require renegotiation,
through mediation, of retirement benefits for newly hired police officers had been
declared dead in the water. Defendant Wall had not discussed the election sign issue
with Chief McCaw, nor had he taken any other action against the Chief in the nearly
four weeks that had elapsed.
36.
On or shortly before Friday, August 22, 2014, someone left a note in Mr.
McGraths mailbox stating that, on a specific date, Chief McCaw had stolen
McGraths election sign from the gas station and that it had been captured on a patrol
car video recording.
37.
According to Defendant Bartolotta, Mr. McGrath met with him at a car
wash on August 22, 2014, and told him that there was a video showing the Chief
stealing his campaign sign. McGrath asked Bartolotta what he would do about it.
Defendant Bartolotta said that he called Defendant Wall and repeated what McGrath
had told him. Defendant Wall asked Defednant Bartolotta to have McGrath come see
him.
9
38.
Pg ID 10
Also on August 22, 2014, Mr. McGrath submitted a Freedom of
Information Act request to the Waterford Township Police Department for the
video, which he identified as being recorded on July 17, 2014. He then went to the
Township offices, where he complained to Defendant Wall about the removal of his
sign, and explained that he ordered a copy of the video. Upon information and belief,
Mr. McGrath explained that his practice was to place his vote no signs next to
existing vote yes signs. He asked Defendant Wall what he was going to do about
the Chief and threatened to go to the media unless he received an answer by August
26, 2014.
39.
Defendant Wall contacted the Police Department to see if McGrath had
submitted a FOIA request for the video. After confirming he had, Defendant Wall
learned that the person who usually retrieved video from the police departments
system, was not working that day. Defendant Wall then contacted the Townships
Information Technology Director, Jered Black, and directed him to retrieve a copy of
the video.
Supervisor Wall Orders a Secret Intrusion into the Police Departments
Secure Video Storage System
40.
In the routine exercise of duties, Waterford Police Department
personnel come into contact, every day, with significant amounts of private, sensitive
and confidential information. Access to and dissemination of this information is
dependent on a number of statutory and regulatory provisions, a need to protect on10
Pg ID 11
going police investigations, and the importance of protecting the integrity of evidence
that may be required in future court or administrative hearings. Improper access or
dissemination of such information can have severe repercussions, ranging from loss
of trust by the public and jeopardizing police investigations, to the loss of rights to
participate in law-enforcement information networks and systems, all the way up to
substantial civil and criminal liability.
41.
As the head of the Police Department, Chief McCaw had the ultimate
responsibility for creating, modifying and enforcing policies, systems and protocols to
protect confidential, sensitive, private and/or protected information.
42.
A decision regarding the release of information or records from the
Police Department involves the evaluation of a number of interrelated policy issues

and legal requirements. For instance, the Michigan Freedom of Information Act
expresses the policy that all people, except those who are incarcerated, are entitled to
full information regarding the affairs and official acts of public officials and
employees. (See Michigan Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq.) That
policy, however, has a number of critical exemptions, particularly in the law
enforcement context. For example, law enforcement may exempt from disclosure
items including, in part:
a. Personal information if public disclosure would be an unwarranted
invasion of privacy [MCL 15.243(1)(a)];
b. Investigative records that could interfere with law enforcement
proceedings, deprive a person of the right to fair trial, disclose
11
Pg ID 12
confidential sources, investigative techniques or procedures, or endanger

the safety of law enforcement personnel [MCL 15.243(1)(b)]
c. Interfere with the ability to maintain the security of penal institutions
[MCL 15.243(1)(c)]
d. Medical facts, including protected health information (covered under
HIPAA) [MCL 15.243(1)(l)]
e. Records of law enforcement communication codes or plans for
deployment, in certain circumstances [MCL 15.243(1)(n)]
f. Identify or provide a means of identifying an informant [MCL
15.243(1)(s)(i)]
g. Identify or provide a mean of identifying undercover or plain clothes
officer or agents [MCL 15.243(1)(s)(ii)
h. Disclose operational instructions for law enforcement officer [MCL
15.243(1)(s)(v)
43.
In order to protect such information, the Waterford Police Department
has a number of written policies and protocols to protect records, ensure that requests
for records are properly evaluated, and prohibit any unauthorized release of
information.
44.
Waterford Police Department Policy Number 21, in effect since
February 1, 2001, applies to records and information dissemination and security. In

addition to specifying information security procedures generally, the policy specifically
prohibits dissemination of Police Department records to others outside of the
Department without proper authorization.
12
45.
Pg ID 13
Waterford Police Department Policy Number 53, in effect since May 1,
2009, specifically applies to in-car video equipment and recordings. The policy
explicitly states that [i]n-car video recordings are Department records, subject to
both Departmental Policy and State Statutes. The policy prohibits release of audio
and video recordings to third parties, including other law enforcement agencies,
without specific authorization of the Chief of Police or their designee. The policy
also states that in-car video recordings may only be released pursuant to a properly
evaluated and approved Freedom of Information Act request, court order, subpoena,
or with the consent of the Chief of Police or his designee.
46.
With respect to the secured evidentiary information system that stored
and maintained all video from the in-car video systems, access to view videos was
restricted to those who had been issued user names and confidential passwords by the
Department, under the authority of the Police Chief. Access to higher-level functions
of this system, including the ability to copy video, were limited to a very small group
of police department employees with access to administrative usernames and a
confidential Police Department administrative password. As a further security feature,
this system maintains a detailed log for evidentiary and chain of custody purposes,
which records information including the username of a person accessing the system,
an identifier of the action performed, identification of the video that was accessed,
and the IP address of the computer that was used to log into the system.
13
47.
Pg ID 14
On Friday, August 22, 2014, after Mr. McGrath complained about
removal of his sign, Defendant Wall directed the Townships IT Director, Jered Black,
to order Walter Jankowski, the Police Department Information Technology manager
with administrative access to the video, to report to the Township IT Offices on
Jankowskis day off.
48.
Mr. Black, under Defendant Walls direction, then ordered Mr.
Jankowski to reveal the confidential Police Department administrative password to

him, so that Mr. Black could sneak into the secure evidentiary system. To anyone
reviewing the log maintained by the system, it would appear that Mr. Jankowski had
logged into the system, rather than Black. Mr. Jankowski immediately questioned why
Chief McCaw had not been contacted. Mr. Black called Defendant Wall who advised
that the video involved the Chief. Defendant Wall then instructed Mr. Jankowski not
to tell anybody that he had been ordered to provide his confidential Police
Department administrative password and a copy of the video. Mr. Black eventually
located the video of Chief McCaw, and made a copy at Defendant Walls direction.
49.
On August 22, 2014, Defendant Wall called Chief McCaw to discuss the
conversation he had with Mr. McGrath. Chief McCaw returned the call but was
unable to reach Defendant Wall.
50.
On Sunday, August 24, 2014, Chief McCaw ran into Defendant Wall at a
gas station in the Township. Wall said that Mr. McGrath told him there was a video of
the Chief stealing campaign signs and he threatened to go the media. Defendant Wall
14
Pg ID 15
said he couldnt have that happen. Chief McCaw explained that he had dealt with
people making allegations like this before. He suggested that Defendant Wall let
McGrath go to the media, then do an investigation and take a statement from
McGrath and a statement from the Chief, and then look at the video. Chief McCaw
explained that it would be clear that the signs were illegally placed and that he did
nothing wrong. Defendant Wall said that he felt better after talking to the Chief. Chief
McCaw said he would get have a copy of the video made, and would bring it over to
Defendant Wall the next day. Defendant Wall did not explain that he already had a
copy of the video.
All You Had To Do Was Ask
51.
On the morning of Monday, August 25, 2014, Chief McCaw went to
Defendant Walls Office to discuss Mr. McGraths request. Defendant Wall had a
copy of McGraths Freedom of Information Act request, which he handed to the
Chief. Chief McCaw said that he would have the video pulled and copied, and would
bring it back over.
52.
Chief McCaw returned to the Police Station and met with Deputy Chief
James, Lt. Good and Sgt. Dolehanty. He requested that they obtain a copy of the incar video of his encounter at the gas station with Officer Quaiatto, so that he could
take a copy to Defendant Wall.
53.
Mr. McGraths Freedom of Information Act request specified the wrong
date (June 17, 2014) for the video of the encounter. When the video couldnt be
15
Pg ID 16
located in the footage from June 17, 2014, Chief McCaw directed the others to search
two days before the date, which also came up empty. He then had them search two
days after the date, and the video was located. Chief McCaw reviewed the video and
directed Lt. Good to make copies.
54.
It was clear from Officer Quaiattos patrol car video that neither a vote
no nor a vote yes sign were left in the prohibited area after Chief McCaw removed
the signs.
55.
Still not knowing that Defendant Wall had already obtained a copy of
the video, Chief McCaw brought a copy over to Defendant Walls office later in the
afternoon on Monday, August 25, 2014. Defendant Wall seemed uninterested in
watching the video at that time. When Chief McCaw told Defendant Wall that Mr.
McGrath had the wrong date in his FOIA request, Defendant Wall told the Chief to
deny the request and say that nothing responsive was located. Chief McCaw said he
didnt want to do that, and would produce the video that had been located from July
19, 2014. Defendant Wall said that he would contact the Chief later on that day, but
did not.
56.
On Tuesday, August 26, 2014, Chief McCaw tried to reach Defendant
Wall several times. When Defendant Wall finally returned the call, he stated that he
had received an email from Mr. McGrath the previous night. Chief McCaw requested
a copy, and Defendant Wall forwarded it.
16
57.
Pg ID 17
It became clear to Chief McCaw why Defendant Wall had not seemed
interested in viewing the video. The video had been obtained improperly and then
redistributed shortly after it was obtained. It was also apparent to Chief McCaw that
Mr. McGraths request for the video was part of larger effort that was not driven
primarily by Mr. McGraths search for any information, and that Mr. McGrath knew
that a number of his signs had been removed and retained by the Township. At 8:30
p.m. on Monday, August 25, McGrath sent the following email to Defendant Wall:
Gary,
Now that you are bringing in some experts to investigate it and its
out in the open, Im going to fade away on this issue as much as
possible. Its about how the police run their department, and I
really have no control over that, so Im stepping out of it. Tony
tells me you have seen the video now, and Tony has a copy of it
too and has seen it, so were all on the same page now, so Im not
bringing anything more constructive to table. I'll always be available
to you to answer any questions you have, but I'm no longer going
to be talking to the media or others about this thing I was
always just a pawn here anyway.
Those yard signs are more trouble than the effort . . . If you guys
have any still hanging around, give me a time and place and Ill try
to swing by and pick them up and destroy them so they won't
bother anyone again. This week I'm available after 4 pm, Tue, any
time Thursday, or Friday morning just let me know when and Ill
come by and take them off your hands. I should have done that
earlier, but I honestly thought they'd all already been pitched.
The Chinese have a saying May you live in interesting times. Im
not sure if its a blessing or a curse, but it applies here.
[emphasis added]
17
58.
Pg ID 18
Chief McCaw then went to Defendant Walls office once more to
discuss the matter, and the email that had been forwarded. Defendant Wall denied
that any other investigation was being conducted. He didnt tell Chief McCaw that he
had asked the Oakland County Sheriffs Office to investigate. When they declined,
Defendant Wall contacted the Michigan State Police, which opened a file.
The Chief Discovers the Data Break-In

59.
Mr. McGrath never picked up the copy of the patrol-car video that had
been prepared for him in response to his Freedom of Information Act request. When
he was contacted by the Township, Mr. McGrath indicated that he did not intend to
pick up his copy because he had already viewed the video. Chief McCaw then received
a copy of Mr. McGraths email to Defendant Wall, referred to above in paragraph 57.
60.
Chief McCaw had no concerns with an authorized release of the video in
response to the Freedom of Information Act, but was concerned that the proper
protocols had not been followed in protecting the security of the information or to
ensure that it was only released through approved channels. In investigating the
obvious lapse, Chief McCaw was able to obtain information indicating that the video
had been accessed from outside the police station, and several times from computer
terminals inside the station. With the help of others, Chief McCaw was able to
determine that the video had been obtained from a terminal located in Township IT
Director Blacks office, Investigating further, Chief McCaw interviewed Mr.
18
Pg ID 19
Jankowski, who ultimately admitted he had been directed to hand-over his

confidential Police Department administrative password, and had been ordered not to
reveal to anyone either that he had done so, or that Jered Black still possessed the
confidential Police Department administrative password. Chief McCaw was also able
to review a recording of video from within the Waterford Township Police
Department that provided evidence of who had accessed and shared the video (and
passwords) from the computer terminals within the police station.
61.
Chief McCaw was concerned that continued possession of the
confidential Police Department administrative password by the Township IT Director

Jered Black who was not an member of the Police Department destroyed the
security of the information that the Police Department was required to protect, and
evidenced a lack of security in at least one of the Police Departments secured
systems. Unless the username and password of an authorized user remained
confidential, the evidentiary value of the log kept of system use was destroyed.
Additionally, upon login to this system with the confidential Police Department
administrative password, any patrol car video could be searched, reviewed, copied and
certified. Improper accessing of the system by anyone outside of the department who
obtained the password, or any improper dissemination of the information, some of
which was statutorily protected, could result in potential civil liability and/or
administrative, civil, or criminal sanctions for the Township, the Police Department
and any person with unauthorized access to the information.
19
62.
Pg ID 20
Based on the breach of security he discovered, Chief McCaw was also
concerned about the possibility of other similar breaches past, current or future. In
order to rectify the situation, Chief McCaw drafted and distributed a written directive
to his department indicating that a data breach had been discovered, and that he was
ordering all department personnel to reset their confidential passwords and maintain
confidentiality in the future. In the written directive, he explained some of the sources
of legal liability for improperly accessing or disseminating protected information, in
order to emphasize its importance.
63.
Chief McCaw took no steps to impose any sanctions on any department
personnel for any past or current breaches of confidentiality, and advised the
Townships labor counsel and Human Resources director that he was not imposing
sanctions. He noted, however, that violations of the department policies in the future
could result in discipline.
64.
Chief McCaw also contacted L-3, the provider of the secure evidentiary
video system, on August 26, 2014 to change the confidential Police Department
administrative password that Defendant Wall had ordered Mr. Jankowski to share
with the Townships IT director Black, in order to secure the system.
65.
Additionally, Chief McCaw informed Defendant Wall that the accessing
of the secure evidentiary video system by Township IT Director Black was

unauthorized, and that a current or continued failure by the Police Department to
secure and protect information carried criminal and civil liability.
20
66.
Pg ID 21
Defendant Wall, after being so informed, threatened the Chief in a
phone call, on September 13, 2014, stating If you think you are going to fuck me,
Im going to show you how you are going to get fucked. Fuck you. Defendant
Wall then hung up the phone.
67.
On September 25, 2014 Defendant Wall notified Chief McCaw, in
person and via letter, that he was being placed on paid administrative leave pending
the outcome of a Township investigation into the removal of the election sign and the
Chiefs written directive regarding the confidentiality of passwords. The same letter
indicated that being placed on paid administrative leave was not a disciplinary action
or suspension.
68.
By the time Chief McCaw was placed on administrative leave, he had
already been notified and was participating voluntarily in the Michigan State Police
investigation into the removal of the signs. He also participated fully and voluntarily in
the Township investigation that Defendant Wall started after he had requested the
Michigan State Police investigation.
Aint No Stopping Us Now
69.
Upon information and belief, within two months after Chief McCaw
was placed on paid administrative leave, Waterford Township and the WTPOA met
to discuss renegotiating the retirement benefits for newly hired officers. By December
19, 2014, while the Chief was still on leave, the Township and Union had signed an
21
Pg ID 22
agreement changing retirement benefits for newly hired officers to a defined

contribution plan, and also increasing wages for the officers.
Houston, We Have a Problem
70.
The Michigan State Police forwarded the results of its investigation to
the Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney for review. After the Oakland County
Prosecutor recused herself, the investigation was forwarded to the Michigan Attorney
General, who transferred the investigation to the Genesee County Prosecuting
Attorney for review. Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton concluded that Chief
McCaw had acted within the scope of his authority, and concluded that Chief McCaw
had committed no crime in removing the illegally placed election signs.
71.
During his employment, including during his tenure as the Chief of
Police, Chief McCaw was a member of the civil service of the Charter Township of
Waterford.
72.
Waterford Townships Police and Fire Civil Service Management
Personnel Policy indicate that matters of dismissal, suspension or demotion are

governed by the Firemen and Policemens Civil Service System Act 78 of 1935 (MCL
38.501 et seq.), and any local rules established by the Commission.
73.
Section 14 of Act 78, MCL 38.514, establishes that a civil service
employee shall have tenure during good behavior and efficient service. Disciplinary
action including removal, discharge, demotion or suspension are only permitted for
22
Pg ID 23
cause, and then only if the employee had been provided with written notice of charges
within 90 days of a violation.
74.
The Defendants could not establish cause to justify the termination of
Chief McCaw, because no such cause existed.

75.
On January 30, 2015, Defendant Wall sent Plaintiff a letter notifying him
that an investigation has revealed and lead to the identification of evidence

supporting charges that you engaged in actions or misconduct which may justify your
termination as Police Chief of Waterford Township. The letter notified Plaintiff that
he was being provided with a right to respond in person and/or in writing to the
charges, at a meeting with Defendant Wall or his designee. The letter also notified
Plaintiff that he would remain on paid administrative leave until a decision was made
after the meeting.
76.
The meeting described in the letter was outside of the procedures set
forth in MCL 38.514, in that no decision had yet been made against Plaintiff to
remove, discharge, demote or otherwise impose a disciplinary sanction, and the
hearing was explicitly an opportunity to address the charges prior to a decision. The
Act 78 procedures provide protection once such a decision has been made and action
has been taken, in which case the employee has a right to answer the charges and
demand a public hearing before the Civil Service Commission, and to appeal an
adverse decision of the Civil Service Commission to the Circuit Court.
23
77.
Pg ID 24
Plaintiff exercised his opportunity to respond, and appeared before the
designee of Defendant Wall on February 13, 2015 to present evidence that he had
engaged in no misconduct.
78.
Defendant Wall did not inform Chief McCaw of the results of the
meeting, nor did he impose any type of discipline.

79.
Rather, in order to circumvent the protections of Act 78, Defendant
Wall conspired with Defendant Board of Trustees members Sue Camilleri, Margaret
Birch, Anthony Bartolotta, Julie Brown, Karen Joliat and Donna Kelley, to find
another way to separate Chief McCaw from his employment. At the March 9, 2015
Board of Trustees meeting, the Board added a last-minute item to their agenda,
without providing notice to Chief McCaw, and introduced and voted on a resolution
recommending that the Townships Police and Fire Pension Board immediately retire
Chief McCaw, who had turned 60 years of age on February 26, 2015.
80.
On March 10, 2015, Defendant Wall sent a letter to Chief McCaw,
which confirmed the retaliatory purpose of the retirement resolution. Defendant Wall
said that he found that the charges against Chief McCaw had been sustained and that
if you were to resume active employment with the Township, termination would be
required. Additionally, Defendant Wall stated [b]ecause of your service, it was my
hope to avoid having to make the decision to terminate your employment. The Action
by the Board, hopefully, avoids the necessity of that action.
24
81.
Pg ID 25
Had Defendant Wall terminated him, Plaintiff would have immediately
demanded a public hearing before the Public Service Commission to contest such an
outrageous and unjustified action.
82.
Chief McCaw had already exercised an option to exercise a Deferred
Option Retirement Option Plan (DROP), on January 1, 2012, for a period of five
years, so he was already in retirement status. It was clear from the documents that he
had executed for the DROP, that retirement status had no effect on his employment
status.
83.
Charter Township of Waterford Code of Ordinance, Chapter 2, Article
III, Division 11, Section 2-221(e)(3) specifically states that [e]xcept with regard to the
retirement benefits expressly provided herein, employees electing DROP participation
will continue with full employment status with all rights and privileges afforded to
respective employees of the police department or fire department and the
management and administrative employee group, including, but not limited to, future
promotions, benefit and wage increases, as well as retirement system membership and
board representation.
84.
Chief McCaw, prior to the Pensions Boards vote on his retirement,
objected, through counsel, to the proposed action noting his belief that the Board of
Trustees and Township Supervisor are asking the Pension Board to take an action in a
manner that would affect, or that is intended to affect, Chief McCaws employment,
and that the Township, its Board of Trustees and Supervisor are prohibited from
25
Pg ID 26
taking such action by Act 78 (MCL 38.501 et. seq.). Furthermore, it is clearly Chief
McCaws position that any action taken by the Township, its subunits, boards,
Supervisor and/or employees, that affects his employment under current
circumstances would be unlawful, improper, in excess of legal authority, contrary to
proper and lawful procedure, without support, discriminatory and retaliatory.
85.
Chief McCaw additionally requested that the Pension Board postpone
consideration of the Board of Trustees resolution to a later meeting, as he had

provided advance notice to Defendant Wall that he would be out-of-state visiting his
ailing sister- who has since passed away. The Board did not grant an adjournment, and
instead, on March 17, 2015 voted to retire Chief McCaw.
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO TITLE 42 U.S.C. 1983
Violation of Plaintiffs Due Process Rights
Against Defendants Waterford Township, Wall, Camilleri, Birch, Bartolotta, Brown,
Joliat and Kelley
86.
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 85, as if set forth
fully herein.
87.
As Waterford Township Supervisor, and as an agent and officer of
Waterford Township, Defendant Gary Walls actions and conduct in connection with
and directly pertaining to Chief McCaws termination were undertaken under the
auspices of and in furtherance of the powers bestowed upon him as a Supervisor of
26
Pg ID 27
Waterford Township, and said actions thus undertaken amounted to an infringement

of Chief McCaws constitutional rights in violation of 42 USC 1983.
88.
and directly pertaining to Chief McCaws termination were undertaken in furtherance
of and in the perceived bests interests of Waterford Township, and said actions thus
undertaken amounted to an infringement of Chief McCaws constitutional rights in
violation of 42 USC 1983.
89.
and directly pertaining to Chief McCaws termination were undertaken in furtherance
of and represented official policy of Defendant Waterford Township and are
therefore fully attributable to Defendant Waterford Township, and represented an
execution of the policy and judgment of Waterford Township and said actions thus
undertaken amounted to an infringement of Chief McCaws constitutional rights in
violation of 42 USC 1983.
90.
Likewise, the actions of Defendant Board of Trustees members Sue
Camilleri, Margaret Birch, Anthony Bartolotta, Julie Brown, Karen Joliat and Donna
Kelley also represent official policy of Defendant Waterford Township and are
attributable to Defendant Waterford Township.
27
91.
Pg ID 28
Acting under color of law, Defendants Wall, Camilleri, Birch, Bartolotta,
Brown, Joliat and Kelley promulgated and carried out the official policies, orders and
directives described above intentionally and deliberately, with wanton and reckless
disregard for the civil and constitutional rights, privileges and sensibilities of the
Plaintiff, including the fundamental right to due process of law and other applicable
provisions of the United States Constitution.
92.
By promulgating and carrying out the policies, orders and directives
described above, Defendants Wall, Camilleri, Birch, Bartolotta, Brown, Joliat and
Kelley unlawfully violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
93.
Plaintiff, as a civil service employee, enjoyed a constitutionally and
statutorily protected interest in his First Amendment right to freedom of speech,

including, but not limited to, implementation of departmental policies and procedures
on the general conduct of his employees, and including reporting alleged specific
violations thereof to other officials for proper vetting and investigation.
94.
Plaintiff enjoyed a constitutionally and statutorily protected property
interest in continued employment.

95.
Acting under color of law and pursuant to their authority as Township
Officers and/or Board of Trustees Members, Defendants Wall, Camilleri, Birch,

Bartolotta, Brown, Joliat and Kelley took actions to deny Plaintiff the rights and
protections he was guaranteed as a civil service employee of Waterford Township
without due process of law.
28
96.
Pg ID 29
On February 13, 2015, Chief McCaw appeared for a meeting with
Defendant Walls designee, Township Human Resources Director Feurino, to

respond to a written charge letter sent by Defendant Wall. According to the letter, the
meeting was to provide an opportunity to respond before Defendant Wall decided
whether or not to impose disciplinary action. The meeting was outside of the
procedure specified in Act 78 (MCL 38.501 et. seq.), as no adverse action had yet been
imposed.
97.
Defendant Wall made no decision on the evidence presented at the
meeting, nor did he impose a disciplinary action. Instead, Defendant Wall conspired
to force the retirement of Plaintiff by presenting to the Board of Trustees a resolution
calling for the Retirement Board of the Township to impose a mandatory immediate
retirement on Plaintiff, due to his age.
98.
Such mandatory retirement had never been imposed on a Township
employee before, and was clearly targeted only at Chief McCaw and was
discriminatory in effect. No other Police and Fire Department Civil Service employee
over the age of 60, was subject to or included in the resolution, and each such
persons employment remained unaffected by the Board of Trustees action.
99.
The Board of Trustees, by and through Defendants Wall, Camilleri,
Birch, Bartolotta, Brown, Joliat and Kelley, voted to approve the resolution.
100. Only after the Board had voted to approve the resolution, did
Defendant Wall write a letter to Chief McCaw notifying him of what his decision
29
Pg ID 30
would have been, and the action he would have taken, had there been no action by
the Board to impose retirement.
101. The Boards action deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity for any
meaningful review and/or public review of any charge of misconduct that had been
made or implied against him.
102. Defendant Walls letter of March 10, 2015 made clear that the intent of
the Boards March 9, 2015 resolution was retaliatory in nature, and was made in order
to avoid the procedure of Act 78, had Defendant Wall terminated Chief McCaw.
103. The Retirement Board imposed retirement upon Plaintiff on March 17,
2015.
104. Defendants deprived Plaintiff of continued employment, as guaranteed
by his civil service status, by depriving him of the rights he held as a civil service
employee to challenge a termination, by public hearing.
105. Defendants actions in depriving Plaintiff of his constitutionally
protected property interest in continued employment absent proper termination
procedure abridges his right to due process of law in violation of the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
106. Plaintiffs reputation and his opportunity to pursue future employment
constitute a constitutionally protected liberty interest.
107. By the time of Plaintiffs forced retirement, Defendant Wall and/or
other agents of Waterford Township publicly leveled charges and claims against
30
Pg ID 31
Plaintiff which stigmatized Plaintiff and severely damaged Plaintiffs opportunity for
future employment.
108. Said claims and charges were false.
109. Said claims and charges were widely publicized.
110. Said claims and charges were implicated in the process by which Plaintiff
was separated from his employment by the Waterford Township.
111. Plaintiff was denied a meaningful name-clearing hearing prior to or
following the termination of his employment.
112. Defendants actions in depriving Plaintiff of his constitutionally
protected liberty interest in his reputation and his opportunity to pursue future
employment, by terminating him without a name-clearing hearing or other notice of
the grounds for his termination and an opportunity to respond appropriately, abridges
Plaintiffs right to due process of law in violation of the 14th Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
113. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff had a clearly established right to
due process of law of which a reasonable public official would have known.
114. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongdoing, Plaintiff
has sustained loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, past and future lost earnings,
the value of fringe and pension benefits, lost job and career opportunities, damage to
his good name and reputation in the community, mental and emotional distress,
31
Pg ID 32
humiliation and embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of

everyday life, and loss of the ability to pursue employment of choice.
COUNT II
Wrongful Discharge Breach of Contract and Legitimate Expectations
Against all Defendants
115. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1-114, as if set forth fully
herein.
116.
Defendant Charter Township of Waterford had entered into a
contractual agreement with its police and fire civil service management personnel
including Plaintiff, which prohibited removal, termination or discipline against such
employees without cause, and which explicitly referred to protections afforded by the
Firemen and Policemen's Civil-Service System Act 78 of 1935.
117. Throughout the course of his employment with Defendant Waterford
Township, Plaintiff also relied on the policies, practices and procedures of Defendants
which provided that civil service employees not be terminated without sufficient
cause.
118. Contrary to the Townships obligations to civil service employees, as
well as its policies, procedures and practices, Defendants Waterford Township and
Defendants Wall, Camilleri, Birch, Bartolotta, Brown, Joliat and Kelley Wall and
Waterford Township took action to involuntarily separate Plaintiff from his
32
Pg ID 33
employment on March 9, 2015, in breach of the contractual agreement and civil

service rules.
COUNT III
Violation of the Michigan Whistleblowers Protection Act
Against All Defendants
herein.
121.
After learning that Defendant Wall had ordered Mr. Jankowski to give
the confidential Police Department administrative password to Waterford Township IT

Director Jered Black, who then had continuing access to a secured evidentiary system
of the Police Department, and had instructed Mr. Jankowski not to tell anyone,
Plaintiff advised Defendant Wall that the access was unauthorized and unlawful, and
that a continued breach and failure to secure information could result in civil liability, as
well as administrative, civil and criminal sanctions for the Township and individuals.
33
122.
Pg ID 34
In addition, Plaintiff notified the Detective at the Michigan State Police
about the improper intrusion into the secured police video storage system and related
violations of the law and regulations, while participating with the Michigan State Police
investigation.
123.
On March 9, 2015, Defendant Wall presented a resolution calling for the
immediate retirement of Plaintiff, rather than taking an adverse action against Plaintiff
that would have triggered a public hearing before the Civil Service Commission. The
resolution was voted on and approved by Defendants Wall, Camilleri, Birch, Bartolotta,
Brown, Joliat and Kelley.
124.
The resolution and actions designed to separate Plaintiff from his
continued employment were in whole, or in part, in retaliation for Plaintiffs reporting

of Defendant Walls directive to obtain the confidential Police Department
administrative password, and the breach of security that occurred as a result thereof.
125.
At all material times, Plaintiff was an employee and Defendants were his
employers, covered by and within the meaning of the Michigan Whistleblowers

Protection Act, MCL 15.361 et seq.
126.
Defendants violated the Whistleblowers Protection Act, by causing
Plaintiffs involuntary separation from employment in retaliation, because Plaintiff

reported a violation of a law, regulation or rule of the State of Michigan and opposed
such a violation.
127.
The actions of the Defendants were intentional.

34
128.
Pg ID 35
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongdoing, Plaintiff
has sustained loss of earnings, loss of i earning capacity, past and future lost earnings,
COUNT IV
Violation of the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act
129.
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1-128, as if set forth fully
herein.
130.
At all relevant times Plaintiff was an employee, and Defendants were his
employers, covered by and within the meaning of the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil
Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq.
131.
Plaintiffs age was at least one factor that made a difference in
Defendants decision to terminate Plaintiff from his position as Chief of Police.

132.
Had Plaintiff been a younger person, he would not have been
terminated.
133.
Defendants were predisposed to discriminate on the basis of age and
acted in accordance with that predisposition.
35
134.
Pg ID 36
Defendants treated Plaintiff differently from similarly situated younger
employees in the terms and conditions of employment, based on unlawful

consideration of age.
135.
Defendants actions were intentional in disregard for Plaintiffs rights
and sensibilities.
136.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongdoing, Plaintiff
has sustained loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, past and future lost earnings, the
value of fringe and pension benefits, lost job and career opportunities, damage to his
good name and reputation in the community, mental and emotional distress,
COUNT V
Defamation
Against Defendant Gary Wall
herein.
138. Defendant Wall made a series of statements to the media, and others
implying that Plaintiff had selectively removed a sign opposing a police millage.
139. At the time he made such statements, Defendant Wall had been made
aware of evidence supporting Plaintiffs statements that signs supporting the police
millage had also been present near the sign opposing the millage, and that both had
been removed.
36
Pg ID 37
140. The statements of Defendant Wall were false and misleading, and
presented Plaintiff in a false light.
141. Defendant Wall knew that the statements were false and misleading.
142. Defendant Wall published the remarks to third parties with knowledge
of the falsity of the statements or reckless disregard of truth or falsity.
143. Defendant Wall made the statements with actual malice.
144. Defendant Walls statements were not privileged.
145. Defendant Wall made the statements in order to prejudice Plaintiff in
the conduct of his employment duties, and to deter others from dealing with him.
146. Defendant Wall also made the statements to deflect attention from his
improper actions in ordering a police department employee to reveal the confidential
Police Department administrative password for a secure police evidentiary video
system, and instructing the police department employee not to tell anyone that the
password had been compromised.
147. Defendants statements were defamation per se.
148. Defendants defamatory statements resulted in serious damage to
Plaintiffs reputation.
37
Pg ID 38

COUNT VI
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
150. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-149.
151. Defendant Walls conduct as outlined above, was intentional.
152. The conduct of Defendants Camilleri, Birch, Bartolotta, Brown, Joliat
and Kelley, as outlined above, was likewise intentional.
153. The conduct of Defendants Wall, Camilleri, Birch, Bartolotta, Brown,
Joliat and Kelley, as outlined above, was extreme, outrageous, and of such character as
not to be tolerated by a civilized society.
Joliat and Kelley was for an ulterior motive or purpose.
Joliat and Kelley resulted in severe and serious emotional distress.
38
Pg ID 39
RELIEF REQUESTED
For all the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff, Daniel T. McCaw, demands judgment
against Defendants as follows:
a.
Declare that the aforementioned practices and actions of Defendants are
unlawful and unconstitutional;

b.
Enjoin Defendants from further acts of discrimination or retaliation;
c.
Restore Plaintiff to his position as Chief of Police;
d.
Award Plaintiff all lost wages and fringe benefits, past and future, to which
he is entitled;
e.
Award Plaintiff compensatory damages;
f.
Award Plaintiff punitive and exemplary damages;
g.
Award Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and interest; and
h.
Award such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
FLOOD LAW PLLC
/s/ Todd F. Flood
Todd F. Flood (P58555)
Lawrence B. Shulman (P45075)
401 N Main St
Royal Oak, MI 48067
(248) 547-1032
tflood@floodlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
39
Pg ID 40
Teresa J. Gorman (P61001)

363 W. Big Beaver Rd Ste 440
Troy, MI 48084-5242
Tel: (248) 763-6943
terigorman@aol.com
Co-counsel for Plaintiff
Dated: June 7, 2015
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
Respectfully submitted,
FLOOD LAW PLLC
/s/Todd F. Flood
Todd F. Flood (P58555)
Lawrence B. Shulman (P45075)
401 N Main St
Royal Oak, MI 48067
(248) 547-1032
tflood@floodlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: June 7, 2015
40

McCaw Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

McCaw Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 1 of 40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-vCHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WATERFORD,

Teresa J. Gorman (P61001)

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 2 of 40

This is an action for deprivation of Plaintiff's rights under the United

First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is

Plaintiff further invokes this courts supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 3 of 40

At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Daniel T. McCaw was a

resident of the Township of Waterford, within the Eastern District of Michigan.

Defendant Charter Township of Waterford (Waterford Township) is a

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 4 of 40

Defendant Anthony M. Bartolotta during all relevant times, was a

Defendant Donna F. Kelley during all relevant times, was a member of

Michigan law provides, pursuant to MCL 42.5, that all legislative

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 5 of 40

Until his termination in March 2015, Plaintiff Daniel T. McCaw was

Throughout the course of his employment with Waterford Township,

Chief McCaw performed his job in a manner that was exemplary.

Chief McCaw demanded excellence and accountability from the

Prior to December, 2014, Waterford Township police officers who were

In early 2014, Waterford Township attempted to negotiate an agreement

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 6 of 40

When the negotiations proved unsuccessful, the Township asked for

In early 2014, Defendant Wall, Defendant Camilleri and Defendant

back to his home in Waterford Township, while off-duty. As he approached the

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 7 of 40

Waterford Township Zoning Ordinance 2-510, subsection (f) states

Pursuant to policy, practice and ordinance in Waterford Township,

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 8 of 40

Video recorded by the police in-car video systems is automatically

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 9 of 40

As of August 15, 2014, the Townships efforts to require renegotiation,

According to Defendant Bartolotta, Mr. McGrath met with him at a car

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 10 of 40

Also on August 22, 2014, Mr. McGrath submitted a Freedom of

Defendant Wall contacted the Police Department to see if McGrath had

In the routine exercise of duties, Waterford Police Department

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 11 of 40

A decision regarding the release of information or records from the

Police Department involves the evaluation of a number of interrelated policy issues

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 12 of 40

confidential sources, investigative techniques or procedures, or endanger

In order to protect such information, the Waterford Police Department

Waterford Police Department Policy Number 21, in effect since

February 1, 2001, applies to records and information dissemination and security. In

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 13 of 40

Waterford Police Department Policy Number 53, in effect since May 1,

With respect to the secured evidentiary information system that stored

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 14 of 40

On Friday, August 22, 2014, after Mr. McGrath complained about

Mr. Black, under Defendant Walls direction, then ordered Mr.

Jankowski to reveal the confidential Police Department administrative password to

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 15 of 40

On the morning of Monday, August 25, 2014, Chief McCaw went to

Mr. McGraths Freedom of Information Act request specified the wrong

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 16 of 40

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014, Chief McCaw tried to reach Defendant

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 17 of 40

2:15-cv-12069-MFL-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 06/07/15 Pg 18 of 40

Chief McCaw then went to Defendant Walls office once more to

The Chief Discovers the Data Break-In