 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Polony v. City of Sterling Heights2/20/2001
vidence of prosecutorial misconduct. The party seeking to enforce the release agreement has the burden of showing that the release-dismissal agreement resulted from a case-specific concern for the public interest, not from a concern for the private interests of government officials. Stamps, supra at 633. Prosecutorial misconduct occurs where the police or the prosecution file unfounded or frivolous charges against the defendant in order to protect the police officers from civil liability for excessive force. Stamps, supra at 633-634.
Plaintiff did not present any evidence that unfounded or frivolous charges were brought against her in an attempt to protect the police officers from civil liability. Plaintiff testified that when she was having a diabetic reaction, she behaved as though she was, and could appear to be, drunk. She does not dispute that her driving was erratic on the evening in question or that she had had several drinks earlier in the evening. Plaintiff presented no evidence that the police used excessive force. Given the lack of evidence regarding prosecutorial misconduct, a question of fact did not exist on the issue. The prosecutor's actions in securing an initialed release under the instant circumstances was consistent with a case-specific concern regarding the possibility of plaintiff raising future claims of misconduct arising from a situation where the city and its agents appeared to have acted properly under the circumstances known to the prosecutor, rather than a concern for the private interests of governmental officials to insulate overreaching conduct from suit.
Plaintiff also argues that the release-dismissal was not valid because enforcement of the agreement would adversely affect public interest. Plaintiff argues that she took a polygraph test at the request of the prosecutor, with the understanding that the charges against her would be dismissed if she passed. Plaintiff contends that "it is contrary to the public's interest in the fair and proper administration of justice for a person to be put through a polygraph examination on the promise of a specific result if successful, only to be denied what had been promised."
A copy of the polygraph report before us states that the examiner concluded that plaintiff was likely truthful in her statements that she had no more than two drinks that night, that she had them before 11:00 p.m., and that she had suffered a diabetic reaction. Plaintiff's criminal defense attorney testified at deposition that in his initial discussions with the prosecutor, he requested that a polygraph be administered:
I had a phone conversation prior to appearing in court with the Assistant City Attorney . . . And I talked to him on the phone, because I thought this case had a very peculiar set of circumstances, very unusual from the cases that you normally get. Okay. And I asked if he would make arrangement , or what could be done relative to a plea; specifically, I asked for a polygraph to be taken on behalf of my client, and a polygraph was indeed arranged. So there was a lot of discussion prior to us even appearing in court on, I assume, February 7th of this year. As I understood, the agreement . . . was that if indeed Miss Polony passed the polygraph relative to the issue of whether she had been drinking that night, if she passed and was truthful in her answer, the case was going to be dismissed. And obviously, that is not what happened, because if you read this plea here and my testimony already, that is not what we ended up doing.
We conclude there is insufficient evidence in the record to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding prosecutorial misconduct. Although it appears that plaintiff's counsel and th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Michigan DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|