A veteran police officer in the North Royalton Police Department is being investigated after a judge’s ruling challenged his charges of an OVI.
A man was pulled over in April for a tinted window violation and a non-operating license plate light. The man was ultimately charged for those two misdemeanors, as well as OVI, Failure to Comply with Order or Signal of Police Officer and Resisting Arrest. The police officer initiating the traffic stop reported that the vehicle did not stop immediately when his lights were activated, but did come to a stop soon after he sounded his siren. He also reported that the driver showed signs of impairment, such as bloodshot, red and watery eyes, dazed, disoriented, with slurred speech. A field sobriety test was then issued and the man arrested.
The case was sent to Parma Municipal Court. During a suppression hearing, Judge Timothy Gilligan dismissed the case after the defendant produced a cell phone recording that was taken during the incident, which contradicted what was reported by police. In an opinion Gilligan wrote on October 24, he states that the “video tape demonstrated that the defendant exhibited not even the slightest indication of ‘dazed, disoriented, drunk-like and uncooperative demeanor, thick, mumbled and slurred speech’ as attested to by (the officer) at the time of the arrest.” Information reported on the field sobriety test also contained information that was not correct. Gilligan wrote that “the evidence presented throughout the Motion to Suppress demonstrated that (the officer) filed an official police report replete with inaccuracies, and falsehoods. He further attested to these inaccurate statements while under oath.”
The man filed a formal complaint with the North Royalton Police Department against the patrolman, as well as two other officers that were present during the arrest.
The patrolman has been placed on desk duty while an internal investigation is taking place. North Royalton Law Director Thomas Kelly said that once this investigation is completed, it will be up to the Police Chief to determine what actions will take place with this patrolman. He did say that whatever the outcome, the officer can appeal to the Mayor, as provided for by the union contract. “We have a process in place and we’re going to let the process work,” he said.
The officer is also being investigated by the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s office, who filed a motion in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to name Attorney Michael Maloney as special prosecutor.
By GLORIA PLEVA KACIK
Contributing Writer