ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
State of Ridgeway
IN RE
SITEOWNER
Petitioner
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM RESPONSE
CLAIM NO. RSC-AD-266
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM RESPONSE
CLAIM INFORMATION
Please complete the following fields to the best of your ability.
Agency: Ridgeway State Police
Type of Action ADMINISTRATIVE DEMERIT § 1.4
IA Reference No. 2-22-0016-C-RSP
Responding Agent Solicitor General’s Office as State Counsel
MANDATORY DISCLOSURE
COMPLETE THIS DISCLOSURE AS PART OF YOUR RESPONSE
Internal Affairs Report: #2-22-0016-C-RSP - Investigations Summary Report.pdf
Violations: Ridgeway State Police Policy 301-5.7(B)
Ridgeway State Police Policy 301-5.8(C)
Criminal Referral: The action was referred to the Department of Justice.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) On March 30th, 2022, Petitioner shot and killed g_dsimply.
2) On March 30th, 2022, Petitioner was present in his capacity as a Trooper at the Sherrif’s
Office building in Sterling Heights, Ridgeway.
3) There was a large shooting and on-going hostilities at the place where the Trooper was
located.
4) G_dsimply was not involved in these hostilities.
5) G_dsimply spawned in game, and drove to the Sheriff’s Office.
6) After arriving there, he walked into the lobby of the Sheriff’s Office where Siteowner was
located.
7) G_dsimply was unarmed.
8) Siteowner killed G_dsimply immediately when he walked into the lobby.
9) The Internal Affairs Division conducted an investigation into the shooting following a
report by G_dsimply.
10) The Internal Affairs Division interviewed both the victim, and Mr. Siteowner throughout
the course of the investigation.
11) The Internal Affairs Division published a report of their findings and issued a demerit to
Siteowner for his actions related to the incidents on March 30th.
12) On March 30th, 2022, Petitioner Siteowner directly apologized to g_dsimply for shooting
him on the same day.
ARGUMENT
This court’s responsibility is two-fold: first to determine whether or not a plain and clear
factual error was present, and second, to decide whether or not the agency took into account
mitigating circumstances. These are the only two objections the Petitioner brings. Because there
was no clear error, and because the agency accounted for mitigating circumstances, relief may
not be granted.
I. THE CLAIM MAY NOT PROCEED
A. There Was No Plain or Clear Factual Error.
Petitioner asserts that the factual error made by the agency was in rejecting the claim that
Siteowner knew the member was in GDK prior to him entering the lobby. But the agency’s
decision in this regard was based upon a sound reading of the record at hand, and was not clearly
erroneous as the law requires.
Petitioner, in order to have an administrative claim in this court, must establish that there
was a “clear and present factual error.” Rid. Admin. Procedures Act § 1.4(c)(1). It is not enough
for Petitioner to present a mere factual error. Indeed, the law requires that it be “clear and
present.” Id. In order for the factual error to be “clear and present” a reasonable reading of the
record that the investigator had at the time of the decision must plainly contravene the conclusion
that the investigator arrived at. This is the correct standard to apply in these cases because the
administrative court should offer deference to the factual conclusions of agency internal affairs
divisions. In the case that this court does not, it would greenlight the ability for any person
subject to a demerit to litigate in this court based upon a minute factual error and obtain reversal.
Clearly that was not the intention of the legislature when they added the words “clear and
present.” Id. If the presence of any factual error gives rise to claims in this court, it would
effectively nullify the investigative power and independence of each agency, usurp their ability to
make reasoned factual judgements, and supplant this court’s second-hand analysis for the
investigator’s. That certainly is not how the law should be read nor is how it was meant to.
The record in this case, then, supports the factual conclusion reached by the investigator,
or at the very least, does not plainly contravene it. Whether or not the individual is actually in
GDK is irrelevant. What is important here is whether a reasonable reading of the record would
suggest that the factual conclusion that the investigator made (that Siteowner was not aware of
the players membership in GDK at the time of the event) was correct. This is the case. In the
Petitioner’s interview he asserts that he knew the player was in GDK, and in addition asserted
that the individual “looked like GDK.” Appendix B. This is all that the information the
investigator had to work with when deciding whether or not Siteowner knew the individual was a
part of GDK at the time of the homicide. Petitioner asserts in his filing that his time as District
Attorney for over a year makes him know beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual was a
part of GDK. But this does not matter. Those assertions were never conveyed to the investigator.
It is a sound conclusion to make that a law enforcement officer who “previously held no law
enforcement employment for 6-8 months” could not possibly have memorized each member of a
criminal organization based on their name. See Petitioner’s Complaint at 2. And so, it was
reasonable for the investigator, based on the record he had at the time of the decision, to conclude
that Siteowner could not have known about the membership of the individual in GDK. The
factual finding here, therefore, is not “clear” nor “present.” Rid. Admin. Procedures Act §
1.4(c)(1).
This is the correct standard for analyzing these claims in this court. If this court reverses
the decision of the investigative agency and holds that the factual error was clear, it would
immunize any individual from demerit. Because it means that they can withhold facts from the
investigator, and then obtain reversal in the administrative court when they assert them in their
filings. The investigator had no knowledge of Siteowner’s previous run-ins with this GDK
member because Siteowner did not express them to him. It is not fair for Petitioners to this court
to retroactively correct factual errors on the record if it is solely their fault that they exist in the
first place, and then obtain reversal because of that. The factual conclusion was careful, reasoned,
and not clearly erroneous. This court may not lawfully reverse it.
Even in the event that the court rejects the proposed standard for a “clear and present”
factual error, the facts in contention of whether or not Siteowner knew or would've known that
g_dsimply was in GDK or that g_dsimply was in GDK at all are immaterial to the case at hand,
as the Internal Affairs investigation and ultimate decision would not have been changed even if
these facts were to be found in favor of Petitioner. The words of the investigator heavily imply
that any generalization, be it based on attire or on gang association, would not have justified the
Trooper’s use of force. Appendix C. To determine if the fact is material is to ask whether or not
the end result would change if the factual error is corrected. But someone’s association with a
gang surely cannot be the sole justification for their death. And in light of the totality of the
circumstances, this factual correction would not push the balance in favor of the Petitioner.
Petitioner’s actions were wrong whether he knew of g_simply’s criminal association or not. And
the conclusions reached in the investigation support such a rationale.
B. The Demerit is Not Plainly Nor Clearly Arbitrary
Petitioner claims that the demerit was arbitrary because it “took no account of mitigating
factors, circumstances, or liabilities.” Petitioner’s Claim at 3 (quoting Rid. Admin. Procedures
Act § 1.8(a)(5))(cleaned up). But he misreads and misapplies this standard. Because the
investigator took thorough account of the Petitioner’s purported mitigating factors,
circumstances, and liabilities, and made their decision while cognizant of them, the claim cannot
be read to be arbitrary under Rid. Admin. Procedures Act § 1.8(a)(5). The mitigation that the
Petitioner offers is that his actions may have been justified based on the totality of the
circumstances, but the investigators clearly took reasonable action to investigate the totality of
these circumstances and nevertheless found against Petitioner. They conducted an interview with
both parties. They summarized the facts which included the factual assertions made by the
Petitioner. Their analysis, aswell, included careful consideration of whether or not the assertions
the Petitioner made mitigate culpability. They forthrightly found that they did not. The burden on
the Petitioner is to demonstrate that the agency took “no” account of the mitigating
circumstances. Id. (emphasis added). It is not enough under the law to argue that they made the
wrong decision about the weight of the mitigating circumstances, nor is it enough to argue that
the decision taking into account the mitigating circumstances was wrong. Petitioner’s obligation
is to prove that no consideration occurred. Because it did, the action was not arbitrary.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner alleges that there was both a factual error in the Internal Affairs investigator’s
judgement and that the administrative demerit levied upon Petitioner was arbitrary. Both of these
arguments, however, lack merit due to the fact that the factual error in question is both
immaterial to the decision to issue the demerit and was never raised in Petitioner’s statements to
State Police Internal Affairs, whose decision and findings of fact were correct based on the
factual record available to them at that time. Petitioner’s argument that State Police Internal
Affairs’ decision was arbitrary lacks merit due to the fact that there is clear evidence that the
State Police Internal Affairs investigator assigned to this case took into careful consideration all
evidence and facts available to him at that time, and made a clear and reasonable decision based
on those facts; additionally, there is no evidence that any material facts have since arisen which
would make his decision unreasonable if accounted for. Taking these arguments into account,
Petitioner’s claim cannot proceed.
CLIFFORD2
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Counsel of Record
TURNTABLE5000
Assistant Solicitor General
Department of Justice
SHIGENOHARUMUNE
Assistant Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Dated: April 12, 2022
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
A) Siteowner’s apology to g_dsimply
B) Siteowner’s interview by State Police Internal Affairs
C) State Police Internal Affairs Investigative Report 2-22-0016-C-RSP
