By Ed White
Associated Press
DETROIT (AP) - Three Detroit police officers accused of lying during an internal investigation can't be charged based on those statements, the Michigan Supreme Court said Wednesday, acknowledging that its decision "may be viewed as unpalatable."
The court, in a 5-2 decision, said state law protects officers who make a statement under threat of possible firing. There's no distinction in the law, the majority said, between statements that are true or false.
In 2009, a motorist accused a Detroit officer of assaulting him at a gas station while two officers watched. The three denied it during an internal investigation, but a video discovered months later by a private detective showed the allegations were true.
The officers were charged with obstruction of justice based on their denials. But the officers said they were compelled to speak because they could have been fired if they had stayed silent.
They argued that state law says an involuntary statement can't be used against them in a criminal case, even if false. The Supreme Court reluctantly agreed.
"We understand how this result may be viewed as unpalatable," said Justice Brian Zahra, writing for the majority. "But as this court has long made clear, our statutory analysis is controlled by principles of interpretation, not palatability of outcomes."
In a vigorous 31-page dissent, Justice Stephen Markman said the law protects officers giving information when compelled - not lies. He was joined by Justice David Viviano.
"Allowing an officer to provide false statements and yet receive full immunity utterly defeats the obvious purpose of the statute and serves no comprehensible alternative purpose," Markman wrote.
Published: Fri, Jun 24, 2016
