Appendix — Vreeland v. Townsend
Supreme Court brief1993
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Respondents.
APPENDIX ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
SIXTH CIRCUIT
John G. Rust, Esq.
4628 Lewis Avenue
Toledo, Ohio 43612
(419) 476-0347
Attorney ror Petitioner.
Opinion, urt tf Appeals,
S1xth Circuit, ALTrirming,
District Court
Filed April 14, 1993
Court of Appeals, Order
Denying Petition for
) dé rat
Rehearing.
Filed: May 27, 1993
District Court's Opinion
and Order Denying Rule 59
Motion.
Filed: March 23, 1993
District Court's Order
Adopting Magistrate Judge's
Two Reports and Recommen-
dations and Dismissing
Plaintiff's Complaint with
Prejudice.
Filed: January 3l, 1992
District Court's Judgment
Dismissing Complaint
Magistrate Judge Virginia
Morgan's Order Denying
Plaintiff's Motion Pursuant
to Rule 56(f).
Filed: November 27, 1991
Complaint
Michigan Statutes Annotated,
Section 14.800. Sheriff's
Duty to Take a Mentally I11
Person to Hospital
WN
IN
A
in
.
9. Title 28, Section 1367
Supplemental Jurisdiction -}
10. Transcript of 911 Tape, 58
Transcriber by Mr. Rust's
secretary from the tape.
ll. Certificate of Service ii
of Appendix
John G. Rust, Counsel for Petitioner
hereby certifies that he, on July 13, 1993,
served three (3) copies of the foregoing
Appendix on Attorney Marcia L. Howe (Lead
Counsel), Michael E. Rosati, Esq., Cummings,
McClorey, 33900 Schoolcraft, Ste. G-l,
Livonia, MI 48150-1392, Attorneys for All
Defendants Except State Trooper Murphy,
Brian D. Devlin, Esq., Michigan Department
of Attorney General Tort Defense Division,
P.O. Box 30217, Lansing, MI 48909, Attorney
for Defendant State Trooper Murphy.
Respectfully submitted,
. /
=e Dhae O SEES
John G. Rust
Attorney for Petitioner
=" '
4 eo
APP. ii
NO.
UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE SIXTH (
MARK E.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V.
JAMES TOWNSEND:
HARDAWAY; DONALD
HORVATH: PAT LAUWERS;
JAMES GRUBER; RICHARD
SWEAT; VINCENT BURKEY;
DANIEL BELLINO;
MICHAEL MURPHY; WILLIAM
FREY; MONROE COUNTY
CENTRAL DISPATCH;
AND MONROE COUNTY
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE,
LYNN
Defendants-Appellees,
WALTER TROBRIDGE, et al.,:
Defendants.
>the Court.
VREELAND, :
>ON APPEAL
-DISTRICT
>Please see Rule
proceedings
car
92-1534
OF APPEALS
-LRCUIT
Filed: Apr. 14,
1993
FROM
STATES
COURT
THE EASTERN
THE
UNITED
FOR
-DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN
‘NOT RECOMMENDED FOR
, FULL-TEXT
‘PUBLICATION
>-Sixth Circuit Rule
24 limits citation
>to specific situa-
tions.
24
before citing in a
in a
court in the Sixth
Circuit.
If cited, a copy
>-must be served on
other parties and
This
notice is to be
: prominently
:>decision
APP. |}
displayed if this
is
reproduced.
BEFORE: MERRITT, Chief Judge; and BOGGS and
BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Mark Vreeland sued the de-
fendants! under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging
that his constitutional rights were violated
when he was insulted by Monroe County dis-
patchers, shot and arrested by Monroe County
deputies, prosecuted by the Monroe County
Prosecutor, and jailed when all the defend-
ants allegedly should have known that vree-
land suffered from an unspecified "mental
illness."" Vreeland also brought several
State law claims based on the same conduct.
The district court granted the defendants'
motions for summary judgment for failure to
state a claim and dismissed all claims with
prejudice. Vreeland now appeals that dis-
missal. We affirm.
1 Defendant Townsend, Hardaway, Lauwers,
Horvath, and Gruber are "911" operators for
the Monroe County Dispatch. Defendants
Bellino, Sweat, and Burkey are Monroe Coun-
ty Sheriff's Deputies. Defendant Frey is
the Monroe County Prosecuting Attorney.
Vreeland also named the Monroe County Dis-
atch and the Monroe County Prosecutor's
ffice as defendants. However, these offices
are not separate entities amenable to suit,
pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. Civ. P. Vreeland
did not name Monroe County as a Defendant.
AfP. I-A
————————
On April 23, 1988, Vreeland, after drink-
ing heavily, made a series of phone calls
from his residence in Monroe, Michigan to
the Monroe County Dispatch on the "911" em-
ergency line. Vreeland made approximately
twenty calls between 1:30 a.m. and 1:53 a.m.
and continued to call the dispatch until
5:00 a.m. At first, Vreeland told the dis-
patchers that he was possessed and that he
waS a werewolf. He identified himself by
name and revealed his social security number,
but refused to reveal where he lived. In
other calls, Vreeland growled into the phone,
breathed heavily, simulated missile sounds,
commented on Israel's military capabilities,
expressed concern about the safety of his
mother, threatened to kill his mother, him-
self, or one of the dispatchers, expressed
doubts about his own mental health, informed
the dispatchers that "crack and aids is win-
ning," traded insults with the dispatchers,
muttered incomprehensibly, or simply abru-
APR HW
CP RTE SESH ae ars 48 on
cr
ptly hung up the phone. Over time, the dis-
patchers became frustrated. They insulted
Vreeland, used profanity, and made disparag-
ing remarks about his sexual orientation and
cowardice,
One dispatcher asked Deputy Bellino to
check out plaintiff's residence and investi-
gate the possibility of taking him into
custody. At 3:10 a.m., Bill Younglove, who
lived with Vreeland, called 911 to request
that a car be dispatched to his residence.
Younglove reported that Vreeland had just
left the residence, was possibly armed, and
that he feared Vreeland might kill his own
mother.
At 3:15 a.m., Deputy Bellino, while
crusing in his patrol car near Vreeland's
residence, spotted a man with a shotgun in
one hand and a beer in the other. After the
man pointed the shotgun at Bellino and
yelled, "I'm evil and I'm going to kili you,"
Bellino correctly surmised that the man was
Vreeland. Bellino turned off his lights,
| Ape. 3 (Ne Fae +)
oe ca ial
a ik hs
RR EL RNA LAGS NI A INEM BTA Tk pean %
bi NN a tga
=
backed away, and called for backup. Vreeland
continued to approach Bellino, still brand-
ishing the shotgun and repeated over and
over, "I am evil and I'm going to kill you."
Bellino warned Vreeland ten to fifteen times
and even tried calling him by name and
reasoning with him, but Vreeland continued
to threaten him.
Deputies Richard Sweat and Vincent
Burkey arrived in a patrol car, pulling up
close te Vreeland. The deputies took cover
behind their patrol cars and attempted to
persuade Vreeland to put his gun down.
Vreeland replied that they would have to
shoot him and continued to walk closer to
Bellino. Several times Vreeland motioned as
if he were firing the shotgun. Bellino
reported that he fired a warning shot, but
Vreeland kept coming forward and taunting
the deputies. When Vreeland was about twenty
feet away, Bellino shot him in the arm.
Vreeland dropped the gun and tell to the
ground. Vreeland was taken to the hospital
Aer. S
, ’
in an ambulance.
On April 26, 1988, Monroe County Prose-
cuting Attorney Fred authorized issuance of a
warrant tor Vreeland's arrest on three felony
counts. Vreeland eventually entered a plea
of no contest to a misdemeanor charge of
attempted assault, pursuant to a plea bar-
galn.
In his complaint, Vreeland character-
izes his barrage of phone calis to the
dispatch as a plea for help by someone
suffering from an unspecified mental illness.
Vreeland alleges that the four dispatchers --
Townsend, Hardaway, Lauwers, and Gruber --
defamed and ridiculed him, and exacerbated
his confusion and distress, thus destroying
his self-esteem and prompting him to take
self-destructive, even suicidal, actions
such as taunting and threatening the deputies.
He also claims that their insults amounted to
libel, slander, and intentional infliction
of emotional distress. Vreeland alleges that
Horvath, the dispatchers' supervisor, is
APP. &
responsible for the dispatchers' unprofession-
al conduct.
Vreeland alleges that Deputies Sweat and
Burkey encouraged his self-destrictive
behavior and committed assault and battery
by almost hitting him with their patrol car.
Vreeland alleges that deputy Bellino used
excessive force by shooting him. Finally,
Vreeland alleges that Prosecuting Attorney
Frey maliciously prosecuted him on the
felony charge of assault with a_ dangerous
weapon.
The defendants moved for summary judg-
ment, claiming that Vreeland has failed to
State a claim against Monroe County because
he has failed to identify a policy, custom,
Or practice upon which the individuals acted
and he failed to establish that the dispatch-
ers were inadequately trained; that
Prosecuting Attorrey Frey is entitled to
absolute immunity; that Vreeland has failed
to state a constitutional claim against the
individual dispatchers because he has not
Apa 7
established a special relationship between
them and Vreeland; and that the deputies are
entitled to qualified immunity.
The district court granted the motions
and dismissed both the federal and state
claims with prejudice.* The district court
also determined that any appeal from its
decision would be frivolous and not in good
faith and thus ruled that, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1915(a), an appeal could not be taken
in forma pauperis. Undeterred, Vreeland's
counsel pressed forward and now challenges
the dismissal of all federal and state claims
and the denial of a motion to conduct
further discovery.
I]
We review de novo the district court's
grant of the defendants" motions for summary
judgment. Baggs v. Eagle-Picher Industries,
Inc., 957 F.2d 266, 271 (6th Cir. 1992). We
2Vreeland was a resident of Ohio at the
time of his arrest; therefore, the district
court had diversity jurisdiction over the
state claims.
APP. 8
atid
can affirm the district court only if we
determine that the pleadings, affidavits, and
other submissions show "that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as
a matter of law."' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
The moving party need not Support its
motion with evidence disproving the non-
moving party's claim, but need only "show[] --
that is, point[] out to the district court --
that there is an absence of evidence to Sup-
port the nonmoving party's case." Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).
The pivotal question before us is whether
Vreeland, the party bearing the burden of
proof, has presented a jury question as to
each element of his case. Id. at 322.
Vreeland must present more than a mere scin-
tilla of evidence in support of his position;
he "must present evidence on which the jury
could reasonably find for the plaintiff."
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
252 (1986).
APP.
To prevail in a §1983 action, a plaintiff
must show that the conduct complained of was
committed by a person acting under the color
of state law and that the conduct deprived
the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or
immunities guaranteed by the Constitution or
federal statutes. 42 U.S.C. §1983; see
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981). The
defendants concede that they were acting under
the color of state law, but contend that their
conduct did not deprive Vreeland of any con-
Stitutional or federal statutory rights. On
a more fundamental level, Vreeland's §1983
Claim is deficient because he failed to
identify with specificity the constitutional
right that was allegedly violated. In Wells
v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591 (6th Cir. 1989), this
court held that plaintiffs seeking damages
under §1983 must set forth clearly in their
pleadings the capacity in which they are
Suing the defendants. Vreeland's pleading is
' AP?~. /0
’
seriously deficient. No actions of specific
defendants are tied to specific constitutional
Or statutory rights. In fact, no particular
constitutional provision or statute is even
mentioned at all. As Vreeland's counsel
candidly admits, "Plaintiff was represented
by the only attorney that he could get, an
attorney unfamiliar with the complexities of
section 1981 actions." Appellant's Brief,.
at v (emphasis added). Although we could
afifirm the district court's dismissal of the
federal claims on this ground alone, we
briefly address Vreeland's §1983 ciaims
against each defendant.
B
Prosecutor Frey is unqnestionably en-
titled to absolute immunity because he was
sued for conduct within the scope of his
prosecutorial duies, prosecuting Vreeland for
assault with a dangerous weapon. Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420 (1976).
C
Dispatchers Townsend, Hardaway, Lauwers,
i APP. Jj
1
and Gruber may have acted negliger*] id
unprotessionally in dealing with Vreeland,
but mere negligence is not enough to consti-
tute a §1983 violation. Davidson v. Cannon,
474 U.S. 344 (1986). In Nishiyama v. Dickson
County, Tenn., 814 F.2d 277, 282 (6th Cir.
1987), this court stated:
In our view, a person may be
Said to act in such a way as to
trigger a Section 1983 claim if
he intentionally does something
unreasonable with disregard to a
known risk or a risk so obvious
that he must be assumed to have
been aware of it, and of a mag -
nitude such that it is highly
probable that harm will follow.
The only clear risk that was made known to the
dispatchers was the threat that Vreeland
might kill his mother. Although the dispatch-
ers insulted Vreeland and engaged in needless
bickering, they also ascertained Vreeland's
address and his mother's address and acted
to prevent the risk by notifying Deputy
Bellino.
Finally, this is not a case where the
State actors owed an affirmative duty of care
to the plaintiff. Such cases Only arise when
APP. Ib
q
"the affirmative exercise of [the State's]
power so restrains an individual's liberty
that it renders him unable to care for hin-
self, and at the same time fails to provide
for his basic human needs, e.g., food, cloth-
ing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable
safety..." Reeves by Jones v. Besonen. 754 F.
supp. 1135, 1140 (E.D. Mich. 1991) (citing
Deshaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social
services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). Vreeland
voluntarily called and harassed the dispatch-
ers, and he chose to confront the deputies
with shotgun in hand.
D
Vreeland claims that the deputies used
excessive force in effectuating his arrest.
In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 5386, 388
(1989), the Supreme Court held that escessive
force claims are to be analyzed under the
"objective reasonableness" standard of the
Fourth Amendment rather than under a substan-
tive due process standard. The deputies
Claim an affirmative defense of qualified
APP 13
immunity. Under the doctrine of qualified
immunity, government officials performing
discretionary duties "generally are shielded
from liability for civil damages insofar as
their conduct does not violate Clearly estab-
lished statutory or constitutional rights of
which a reasonable person would have known."
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
Thus, a defendant has qualified immunity unless
the plaintiff's "rights were so Clearly estab-
lished when the acts were committed that any
officer in the defendant's position, measured
objectively, would have understood that he was
under an affirmative duty to have refrained
from such conduct." Dominique v. Telb, 831
F.2d 673, 676 (6th Cir. 1987).
Vreeland was drunk, brandishing a shotgun
Claiming that he was so evil that he had to be
eradicated, and threatening and taunting the
deputies. Before Deputy Bellino shot
Vreeland, he gave him ten to fifteen verbal
Warnings, attempted to reason with him, fired’
a warning shot, and waited until Vreeland was
APP. 1/4
’
approximately twenty feet away, still
approaching, and still making threats. The
deputies are clearly entitled to qualified
immunity.
Vreeland's claim that sergeant Townsend
inadequately trained Deputy Bellino fails for
the same reasons that his claim of inadequate
training of the dispatchers fails, as
discussed in the following section.
E
Vreeland did not name Monroe County as a
defendant, but the claims against the Monroe
County Dispatch and the Monroe County Prose-
cutor's Office -- neither of which is amenable
to suit -- are best interpreted as claims
against Monroe County. Even under this liber-
al interpretation of the pleading, Vreeland
has failed to establish a §1983 claim against
Monroe County.
First, Monroe County cannot be subjected
to liability unless the allegedly unconstitu-
tional act is linked to a policy, custom or
practice. Monell v. Department of Social
APP 15"
RRO Ney SN nencnrarneenenenes
PEON, «gan, ye Pee erneneeememmnmnannns
PRET R a yEt ey: PNEINNR SOT RH Prom Ae KN arepe
Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Vreeland
simply has not cited any policy, ordinance,
or regulation. Vreeland has merely alleged
that Horvath, the dispatch Supervisor, is a
responsible for the actions of the dispatch-
ers whom he supervises. However, liability
under §1983 cannot be established on the basis
of respondeat superior. Rizzo V. Goode, 423
U.S. 362 (1976). Vreeland must show:
...that the supervisor encouraged
the specific incident of misconduct
Or in some other way directly
participated it it. Ata minimum,
a §1983 plaintiff must show that a
Supervisory official at least
implicitly authorized, approved,
Or knowingly acquiesced in the
unconstitutional conduct of the
offending subordinate.
Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th
Citi yc COTt, dented, 469 U.S. 845 (1984).
The dispatchers may have acted unpro-
fessionally by stooping to Vreeland's level
and trading insults. However, there is no
evidence that the dispatchers were following
a policy, custom, or practice of Monroe
County. Vreeland's only evidence is that
more than one dispatcher engaged in the
| APL 1b
questionable exchanges with him. This evi-
dence, standing alone, does not constitute a
pattern.
Vreeland's only specific allegation,
?
other than a "'respondeat superior" theory,
1s that Monroe County inadequately trained
the dispatchers. Inadequate training may
serve as the basis for §1983 liability only
when the failure to train amounts to deliber-
ate indifference to the rights of persons with
whom the municipality's employees come in
contact. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S.
578, 388 (1989). Vreeland's only evidence of
inadequate trainging is an affidavit from a
retired Toledo police officer with experience
as a "911" dispatcher, in which the officer
Stated that the defendant dispatchers'
conduct was inconsistent with standard
operating procedure. However, this does not
reveal anything about the training program.
It only shows that the dispatchers may have
performed as if they were inadequately trained
in this specific incident. The officer did
APP. /
not even hypothesize that inadequate training
was the moving force causing the alleged
deprivation of Vreeland's rights. see id.
at 391 (plaintiff must prove that the
deficiency in training actually caused the
ultimate injury). To the contrary, the
retired officer stated more than once in his
deposition that he thought that the dis-
patchers intentionally departed from standard
operating procedure.
IV
Vreeland also brought state law claims:
assault and battery against the deputies, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress,
libel, and slander against the dispatchers.
The district court properly dismissed these
state law claims with prejudice. First,
Vreeland claims that by driving their patrol
car very close to him Deputies Sweat and
Burkey committed assault and battery. Battery
requires unlawful touching, Espinoza v.
Thomas, 472 N.W.2d 16, 21 (Mich. App. 1991),
and Vreeland has not alleged any contact by
APR /8
by these defendants. Second, the deputies
claim they are immune from the assault Claim
pursuant to M.C.L.A. §791.1407. Vreeland
never responded to the defendants' claims
of immunity on this point, and there is no
evidence in the record that raises a genuine
issue of fact material to this clain. Third,
the dispatchers' conduct may have been
inappropriate and unprofessional, but it does
not rise to the level of intentional inflic-
tion of emotional distress. See Tope v. Howe
445 N.W. 2d 452, 460 (Mich. App. 1989)
("Liability does not extend to mere insults,
indignities, threats, annoyances, petty
offenses and other trivialities."). Finally,
Vreeland's allegations of libel and slander
are frivolous. Vreeland has not specified
which statements are untrue; nor has he
explained how the dispatchers caused the
Statements to be published by the local media.
V
Finally, we hold that the district court
did not abuse its discretion by denying
APP. 1/9
Vreeland's motion to conduct further dis-
covery under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. see York v. Tennessee
Crushed Stone Association, 684 F.2d 360, 363
(6th Cir. 1982). We agree with the district
court's summation: "To request an extension
of time to take depositions now when he could
have taken them during the past year and a
half offends the discovery process."
VI
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the
district court's dismissal of Vreeland's
federai and state claims with prejudice.
APP. oto
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
eee FILED
perA5s4 MAY 27, 1993
LEONARD GREEN, CLERK
No.
MARK E. VREELAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V. ORDER
JAMES TOWNSEND, ET AL.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
BEFORE: MERRITT, Chief Judge; BOGGS and
BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges.
The court having received a petition for
rehearing en banc, and the petition having
been circulated not only to the original
panel members but also to-all other active
judges of this court, and no judge of this
court having requested a vote on the Sugges-
tion for rehearing en banc, the petition for
rehearing has been referred to the Original
hearing panel.
The panel has further reviewed the
petition for rehearing and concludes that the
issues raised in the petition were fully
considered upon the Original submission and
APR 2/
APP 2) |
decision of the case.
} y 4 f
‘
i
A
ie 1 : Cisa<orU
ALU Tr ¢ oo
hor Os ; 4 Nn
APR22
APP. LX
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK E. VREELAND,
Piasntic£, No. 90-CV-71130-DT
VS. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen
JAMES TOWNSEND, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RULE
59 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND/OR TO AMEND OR
VACATE JUDGMENT, AND FOR DISCOVERY UNDER
RULE 56(f)
At a session of said Court, held in
the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan
on MAR 23 1992
PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen
United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on
Plaintiff/s February 12, 1992 "Motion Under
Rule 59 for New Trial and/or to Amend or
Vacate Judgment; for Leave for Discovery Under
Rule 56(f£); and for Other Relief."
Plaintiff's Motion arises out of this
Court's January 31, 1992 Order and Judgment
in which the Court adopted Magistrate Judge
Virginia M. Morgan's two November 27, 1992
APP. 2&3
Reports and Recommendations, granted the
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, and,
accordingly, dismissed Plaintiff's case in its
entirety with prejudice.
The basis of Plaintiff's Motion is his
contention that the Court's January 31, 1992
Order and Judgment are deficient because they
do not reference that the Court considered
the tape of Plaintiff's telephone call to
"911" on the night in question and further
does not reference Plaintiff's November 4,
1991 Motion for Discovery pursuant to Fed.
BR. Civ, Pre. S62).
With respect to the foregoing conten-
tions, the Court would note that it did, in
fact, review the certified transcript of the
911 tape, as well as Plaintiff's Rule 56(f)
Discovery Motion and the Magistrate Judge's
November 27, 1991 Order denying same. These
items are part of the Court's file of this
action, and the Court specifically stated in
the January 31, 1992 Order that the Court had
"reviewed both of the Magistrate Judge's
APR 24
APP. 24
Reports and Recommendations, Plaintiff's
Objections thereto, and the Court's file of
"
o
this action.
To the extent that Plaintiff assigns as
error the Court's failure to specifically
address in its January 31, 1992 Order
Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Order denying his Rule 56(f) Discov-
ery Motion, the Court has once again reviewed
that Order and finds no error in the Magis-
trate Judge's ruling. As Magistrate Judge
Morgan quite clearly stated at pp. 2-3 of her
Order, Plaintiff -- who now is, and ever since
the inception of this lawsuit in May 1990 has
been, represented by an attorney -- has had
more than ample time to conduct discovery
during the year and a half pendency of this
action. It was not until nearly two months
after Defendants filed their motions for
Summary judgment -- and nearly three months
after the discovery cut-off in this case --
that Plaintiff filed his Rule 56(f) discovery
motion. As the Magistrate Judge stated at
APP. a5
APP. aS
> page 3 of her Order denying the discovery
motion: "To request an extention of time to
take depositions now when he could have taken
them during the past year and a half offends
the discovery process," This Court whole-
? +
heartedly agrees.
The grounds for the granting of motions
2 ~
to alter or amend a Judgment are set forth
in Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule
/.i Ch) (3):
(m) Motions to Alter or Amend a Judg-
ment or for Rehearing or Reconsideration.
lon January 27, 1992, Plaintiff Sub-
mitted a new Rule 56 (f) discovery
motion seeking the same discovery that
he sought in his November 1991 motion
which the Magistrate Judge denied. For
the reasons stated above in this Opinion
and Order and for the reasons Stated by
the Magistrate Judge in her November Bis
1991 Order denying Plaintiff's previous
Rule 56(f) motion, Plaintiff's new
Rule 56(f) motion will be denied.
*Although Plaintiff has alternatively
Captioned his Motion as one for New
Trial under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 59(a),
Since no trial was ever conducted in this
matter, Rule 59(a) is inapplicable. Thus,
the Court will treat Plaintiff's Motion
aS one to "alter or amend a Judgment"
under Rule 59(e). App WP
APP. ab
| i
(3) Grounds. Generally, and without
restricting the discretion of the
Court, motions for rehearing or recon-
Sideration which merely present the same
issues ruled upon by the Court, either
expressly or by reasonable implication,
Shall not be granted. The movant shall
not only demonstrate a palpable defect
by which the Court and the parties have
been mislead but also show that a
different disposition of the case must
result from a correction thereof.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has
merely presented the same issues
already ruled upon by the Court, either
expressly or by reasonable implication,
in its January 31, 1992 Order and Judg-
ment. Further, Plaintiff has not
demonstrated a palpable defect by which
the Court has been misled or that a
different disposition of the case must
result from a correction thereof.
For these reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that Plaintiff's February 12,
1992 Motion under Rule 59 be, and hereby
is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED
AND DECREED that Plaintiff's January 27,
1992 Rule 56(f) discovery motion is also
DENIED.
A PP27 Gerald E. Rosen
United States District Judge
APR 27
.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK E. VREELAND, ey) 440.0%
Plaintiff, Hon. Gerald E. Rosen
vs.
JAMES TOWNSEND, LYNN HARDAWAY,
DONALD HORVATH, PAT LAUWERS,
JAMES GRUBER, RICHARD SWEAT,
VINCENT BURKEY, DANIEL BELLINO,
MONROE COUNTY CENTRAL DISPATCH,
MICHIGAN STATE POLICE OFFICER
MICHAEL MURPHY, WILLIAM FREY, AND
THE MONROE COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S rrice,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S TWO
NOVEMBER 27, 1991 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDA-
TIONS AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
At a session of said Court, held in
the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan
on JAN 31 1992
PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen
United States District Judge
This matter having come before the
Court on two Reports and Recommendations
("R & Rs") submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan on
November 27, 1991 recommending in the first
of pe. November 27, 1991 R & Rs, that the
APP. 28
PAD. g
Court grant Defendant Murphy's Motion for
summary Judgment, and recommending in the
second R & R that the Court grant the
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defen-
dants Townsend, Hardaway, Horvath, Lauwers,
Gruber, Sweat, Burkey, Bellino, Monroe
County Dispatch, Director of Central Dispatch.
William Frey and the Monroe County Prosecuta’s
Office; and Plaintiff having timely filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Reports
and Recommendations; and the Court having
reviewed both of the Magistrate Judge's
Reports and Recommendations, Plaintiff's
Objections thereto, and the Court's file of
this action and having concluded that, for the
reasons stated in the Report and Recommendatxrs
summary judgment should be entered in favor of
the all of the remaining Defendants in this
action and this case should, accordingly by
dismissed in its entirety; and the Court
being otherwise fully advised in the premises,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
the Magistrate Judge's two Reports and
: . j APR 29
APPR RF
7
Recommendations of November 27, 1991 be, and
hereby are, adopted by this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the
reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's
two November 27, 1991 Reports and Recommen-
dations, (1) Defendant Murphy's Motion for
Summary Judgment be, and hereby is, GRANTED,
and (2) the Motion for Summary Judgment of
the remaining defendants, --i.e., that of
Defendants Townsend, Hardaway, Horvath,
Lauwers, Gruber, Sweat, Burkey, Bellino,
Monroe County Dispatch, Director of Central
Dispatch, William Frey and the Monroe County
Prosecutor's Office -- be, and hereby is,
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's
Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety with
prejudice.
28 U.S.C. § 1915 CERTIFICATION
The Court further hereby sets forth its
certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 that, in
the event that Plaintiff seeks to appeal from
this case, Plaintiff should not be permitted
APA Bo
' APP. 306
to proceed with such appeal in forma pau-
peris for the following reasons.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), "an appeal
ay not be taken in forma pauperis if the
[district] court certifies in writing that
it 1s not taken in good faith." The Supreme
my
Court has further defined a "frivolous"
action as one that "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,
(90 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1833 (1989).
For the reasons stated in the Magis-
trate Judge's Report and Recommendation which
this Court has concurred in and adopted this
date, Plaintiff's §1983 civil rights claims
are tactuallya nd legally deficient. This
Court, therefore, makes the finding that
Plaintiff's claims are frivolous because
they lack an arguable basis in law or fact.
Accordingly, this Court determines that any
appeal from this decision would be frivo-
lous. It is clear, then, that an appeal
could not be taken in good faith and, there
fore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a), may
APP 3]
App. al
t be taken in forma pauperis.
‘S/ Gerald E. Rosen
Gerald E. Rosen
United States District Judge
APP. 32.
RAD RE NT A BA em
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK E. VREELAND, No. 91-CV-71130-DT
Hon. Gerald E. Rosen
Plaintiff,
VS. al
JAMES TOWNSEND, LYNN
HARDAWAY, DONALD HORVATH,
_ PAT LAUWERS, JAMES BRUBER,
_ RICHARD SWEAT, VINCENT BURKEY,
| DANIEL BELLINO, MONROE COUNTY
_ CENTRAL DISPATCH, MICHIGAN STATE
POLICE OFFICER MICHAEL MURPHY,
WILLIAM FREY, AND THE MONROE
COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE,
Defendants.
/
: JUDGMENT
At a session of Said Court, held in
the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan
on |
PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen
United States District Judge
The Court having this date entered an
Order (1) adopting the Magistrate Judge's
two November 27, 1991 Reports and Recon-
mendations and (2) granting (a) the Motion
for Summary Jdugment filed by defendant
Murphy (b) the Motion for Summary Judgment
filed by the remaining defendants -- De-
fendants Townsend, Hardaway, Horvath,
apr. 33
’
Lauwers, Gruber, Sweat, Burkey, Bellino
Monroe County Dispatch, Director of Cen
tral Dispatch, William Frey and the
Monroe County Prosecutor's Office;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that sun-
mary judgment be, and hereby is,
entered in favor of the DEfendants and
laintiff's Complaint, accordingly, is
DISMISSED with prejudice.
/s/Gerald E. Rosen
Gerald E. Rosen
United States District Judge
APR 34
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK E. VREELAND,
ver IVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiff, a pane 0
i JUDGE GERALD E.
JAMES TOWNSEND, LYNN ___ ROSEN
HARDAWAY, DONALD HORVATH, 2 a
PAT LAUWERS, JAMES GRUBER,
RICHARD SWEAT, VINCENT
BURKEY, DANIEL BELLINO,
MONROE COUNTY CENTRAL DISPATCH,
MICHIGAN STATE POLICE OFFICER
MICHAEL MURPHY, WILLIAM FREY,
and THE MONROE COUNTY PRO-
SECUTOR'S OFFICE,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
PURSUANT TO RULE S6(F)
This matter is before the court on the
plaintiff's motion pursuant Fed.R.Civ.P.
Rule 56(f) for additional time to take de-
positions in order to oppose defendants'
motions for summary judgment. Defendants
have not responded. Plaintiff, Mark
Vreeland, through his attorney filed this
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and
presumably under 42 U.S.C. §1983 on May 2,
1990, alleging that defendants violated his
constitutional rights. After considera-
tion of all the issues raised; 404%. 83
IT IS ORDERED that the motion be and here
by is DENIED for the following reasons,
Fed.R.Civ. P Rule 56 (f) states with
respect to opposition to a motion for sum-
mary jdugment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule
56:
Should it appear from the affidavits
of a party Opposing the motion that
the party cannot for the reasons
Stated present by affidavit facts
essential to justify the party's
Opposition, the court may refuse
the application for judgment, or may
Order a continuance to permit affi-
davits to be obtained or depositions
to be taken or discovery to be had
Or may make such other Order as is
This rule will not be applied to aid
4 party who has been lazy or dilatory.
"Thus, a request for relief under Rule 56(f£)
is extremely unlikely to succeed when the
party seeking the delay has failed to take
advantage of discovery," Wright, Miller &
Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure Civil
2d, §§2740-7241 (West Supp. 1991).
Here, plaintiff seeks to take the de-
positions of defendant Hardaway, lauwers,
Grub Sergeant Tow send, and the lieu-
ruber, Serg py 3g
tenant involved, and Other unidentified
Persons in the Sheriff's office responsible
tor the type of training given to dis-
patchers, Plaintiff Claims that he been
unable to obtain this information due to a
"Cloak of silence" ora "conspiracy of
Sllence,"
However, Plaintiff does not state what
steps eh has taken to depose these indivi-
duals or to obtain the necessary informa-
tion. HE has known the ideitity of defend-
ants since he filed the lawsuit in May, 1990.
Plaintiff and defendants were given an ample
discovery period and plaintiff did not
request an extension. Defendants filed
their motions for summary judgment in
September and October, 1991, Plaintiff has
not demonstrated why he Was unable to obtain
this information before now. ie States that
he had reason to believe that defendants'
conduct departed from Standard practices
after he listened to fhe tape and based
t’ av, eorge ; .
upon e a - PR 37
tired Toledo Police Officer. (John Rust
Affidavit at p. 1) As such, he should have
taken steps to inquire into the training
of Monroe County dispatchers then and not
now. To request an extension of time to
take depositions now when he could have
taken them during the past year and a half
offends the discovery process.
Therefore, for the reason discussed
above, plaintiff's motion is denied.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Virginia M. Morgan
VIRGINIA M. MORGAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: NOV 27 199]
PURSUANT TO TULE 77(D), FED.R.
CIV.P. COPIES MAILED TO ATTOR-
NEYS FOR ALL PARTIES ON
November 27, 1991.
Lori Coons
DEPUTY COURT CLERK
Ss
TO: John Rust
/s/ Michael Rosati
/s/ Lawrence Vanwassenova
/s/ Brian Devlin
7) PE 38
APp 348
[N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Filed \PR 23 1990
rk E. Vreeland,
Case No. 90CV71130D1
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
AND JURY DEMAND
ENDORSED HEREON
? John G. Rust (0000098)
4628 Lewis Avenue
Toledo, Ohio 43612
(419) 476-0347
James Townsend
nn Hardaway,
Donald Horvath,
Lauwer (first name unknown)
James Gruber,
Richard Sweat,
Vincent Burkey,
Daniel Balino,
Walter Trobridge,
lonroe County Sheriff,
onroe County Central Dispatch
J-1-1 Agency or Organization,
arl VanWerdt,
Henrik Kanavel,
=
Chael Murphy,
=
Llliam Frey,
'ffice of the County Prosecutor,
APP.
Defendants.
APP 39
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked
inder Title 28 US CS 1330 for diversity of
cr
tizens, and under Paragraph 1331, as
Plaintiff claims this action involves his
ghts arising under the Constitution and
Laws Of the United States of America.
Plaintiff is a citizen and Laws of The
United States of America. Plaintiff is a
‘itizen and resident of Ohio, and each of
he Defendants are citizens and residents
f Michigan.
On April the 23rd, 1988, Plaintiff
Mark E. Vreeland resided at 266 Hurd Road,
fonroe, MOnroe County, Michigan. At that
ime, he suffered a spell of temporary loss
f control and of his senses, due to
-onditions in his mind, a part of which had
irisen during his service in The United
tates Armed services, where unfortunately,
i¢ had started the use of drugs and alcohol.
n the early hours of April the 23rd, 1988,
‘laintiff was at his residence, had been
jrinking beer for ever urs, WS Mtxi-
A PP. do
cated, and was, mentally in loss of control, .
and telephoned for help to the 9-1-1-Organ-
1Zation or Agency in Monroe County Michigan,
as shown by his numerous Statements, which
were so known and recognized, or in the
exercise of ordinary care, should have been
SO recognized, by the operators, of the 9-1-1
Agency, and the Monroe Coutny Central Dispatch
each of which are governmental Organizations.
Defendant Lynn Hardaway, (first name unknown)
Lauwer,,James Gruber, and Sargeant James
Townsend, were employees of the Monroe
County Central Dispatch, and either talked
to, or heard the conversations with
Plaintiff at that time. Plaintiff Stated,
that among other things, he was "possessed,"
felt a "force" from outer Space, and made
other comments, showing that he was in dire
need of help. Defendant Hardaway and others
of the named Defendants, then in talking with
him, defamed him, held him up to ridicule, and
caused him to he_ further troubled. and in,loss
of control, by their remarks, ations and
APP. 41
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
tone of voice. Defendants James Townsend,
as the Sargeant in Charge, Lynn Hardaway,
(first name unknown) Lauwer, herein after
referred to as Lauwer, and James Gruber,
either Spoke, or ratified, or failed to
correct in any Way, the danger Causing and
improper wrods, "a bastard; you look like a
chimpanzee," and Other defamatory and hostil-
ity generating, ridiculing, Statements, which
in Plaintiff's weakened condition, all
proximately caused him mentally, and other-
wise to be unable to defend himself as
otherwise he would have. Each person,
mentioned above, and the Monroe County
Central Dispatch Persons did not act
professionally, were not supportative, and
failed to follow the standard of accepted
practices of those in their position in that
they did not use terms and tone of voice
that was supportative, helpful, but instead
made Plaintiff's Situation worse, by threat-
ening and hostile actions toward him, to the
Monroe County Deputies who heard the statements
A PP. 42.
a
on the same telephone line of communication,
to take steps to arrest and to incite and
invite and entrap Plaintiff to commit an
act, for which the deputies might arrest him.
5. Plaintiff would have remained in his
home, but was provoked, incited, entrapped,
by the statements made over the 9-1-1 line,
by the people mentioned above, to leave his
home; and walked up Monroe Street in French-
town Township, Monroe County, Michigan. In
doing so, he carried a can of beer in his
left hand, and over his Shoulder, a shot-gun,
with the breech open, in a non-firing position
and continued so to do. About 3:15 A.M.,
on April the 23rd, 1988, he then was seen by
a Depty Sheriff Daniel Belino, who passed
him, in the night time, in an unlighted area,
and then reversed his Sheriff's car, from the
intersection of Hurd and Monroe Street.
Through the Monroe Central Dispatch nine,
communications went out then, to all the
Sheriff's deputies, be on the lookout for
APP. 43
r
Vincent Berkey,in a Sheriff's Car, came upon
Plaintiff, then committed an act of assault
upon Plaintiff by driving the Sheriff Deputies
car, as though it were going to hit the Plain-
tiff and this Put Plaintiff in fear, and
further caused a loss of ability for him to
directly
control himself and further contributed /
to his temporary loss of control so that he
Was not in a condition then, to be culpable or
blamed for his act, because of his mental
condition, Defendant Bellino then, without
Sufficient cause or Provocation, and through
negligence, and intentional wrong, fired a
Shot-gun shot at Plaintiff, Striking Plaintiff
in the right elbow, causing various fractures
of the bones of his arm, and him to be per-
mananently disabled, and to Suffer much pain
and suffering,
4. Defendants Townsend, also Donald
Horvath, the Supervisor of the Monroe Central
Dispatch, Hardaway, Lauwer, and Gruber,
by their acts md Apa MS andfr mn th
fA PR,
i
alternative, intentionally, proximately
caused Plaintiff to be in the position where
he was so shot by Defendant Bellino. beeen:
Donald Horvath, then Sheriff Walter Trobridge,
Carl Van Werdt, then Commander or in charge
of the Erie Post of the Michigan State Police,
and Police Chief, Henrik Kanavel, were also
liable and responsible for all the aforesaid
in that Defendants Trobridge, VanWerdt, and
Knavel, were in the Board of tieeatoce or in
Control of the said 9-1-] Organization, and the
Monroe County Central Dispatch, that they
failed to see to it that the operators on the
9-1-1 Line, in the Monroe Central Dispatch,
were trained professionally, and directed as
to know what to do, when receiving a call
on the 9-1-1 as Plaintiff had sent in as Stated
above; and had they not been negligent, they
would, by following the approved standards of
care, if they so trained, the said Operators,
that they would have mitigated, mollified,
attempted to help, in a Supportive and
APP.4S
APR YS~
professional manner, rather than acting
unlawfully as stated above. Further, then
Sheriff Trobridge, and each of the Sheriff
Deputies, and Supervisors thereof, were
negligent, in not having instructed the
Sheriff deputies as to how to have handled
the situation, without such excesSive force
and permanent injury to Plaintiff and were
guilty of negligence or in the alternative,
intentional wrongs, by not using methods
that would have been protective of said
deputies and the Plaintiff, that were either
known, Or should have been known, in proper
law enforcement actions for the people in-
volved here,
5. Defendant Michael Murphy, a Sergeant,
Michigan State Police, Flatrock Post, Prose-
cuting Attorney William Frey, and others of
the above named Defendants, then prosecuted,
and continued to prosecute Plaintiff on felony
charges, assault with a dangerous weapon,
contrary to Michigan Compiled Law, 750-82
APP 46
APP. 6
claiming that Plaintiff had pointed a shotgun
at Deputy Bellino; and the same as to Deputy
Sweat and that Plaintiff did carry and have
in his possession a shotgun, contrary to
Michigan Compled Law 750-82, four counts of
felonies altogether, and did for some eleven
months, or more, cause Plaintiff so to be
prosecuted in the District Court for the
County of Monroe, First Judicial District,
and Plaintiff to be confined in jail all of
the time. Defendants and each of them, well
knew, from the tapes and electronic record-
ings of the conversations of Plaintiff and
from Plaintiff's actions, that he was not
mentally in control of himself, so was
temporarily deranged, that he was not
criminally culpable nor to be blamed for
his actions, nor responsible for the same,
and likewise, from other sources, but
Defendants either recommended or directly
contributed to the further prosecution of
th Plamtiff, @ wer lidle for not havi
taken a proper stmd g@airst such pwseatwbn,
APF 47
‘
and have each then proximately caused him to
suffer from a prosecution which never shoulda
have been conducted, or continued.
6. Defendants Haraway, Townsend, Lauwer,
Gruber, Horbath, Trobridge, and VanWerdt, and
Kanavel, were each liable for the aforesaid
libels and slanders, were published then, and
have been published since, and are recorded
and will be published in the future without
cause or privilege and have been so published
continuing in on to this year; and by reason
thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to compensa-
tory and punitive damages in the amount of
$50,000.
7. Defendants Bellino, Townsend, Sweat,
Burkey, Trobridge, were liable for the use
of excessive force by Defendant Bellino
in shooting and permanently injuring and
damaging Plaintiff or for their intentional
wrongs or by the negligence of the Sheriff
Trobridge and the Sergeant Townsend, in not
having effectively trained Deputy Bellino
for situations suh 2 yg? Ses en@muntered.
APF,
8. Plaintiff states that there were vari -
ous procedures that would have enabled Deputy
Bellino safely, and without permanent injury
to Plaintiff, to be taken into effective
custody, but that the Defendants named in this
paragraph were negligent in not having trained
Deputy Bellino how effectively adn safely to
all concerned, to have taken Plaintiff into
custody; or else, Defendant Bellino acted
intentionally; and by reason of each and all
Or in the alternative Plaintiff is entitled
to compensatory and punitive damages, for the
assault and battery upon him, in the amount
of $100,000, from each of the Defendants
named in this Paragraph.
. 9. Further, Defendants caused to be
published in the Monroe Evening News, an
account of the events of April the 23rd, 1988,
in form and words, with the implication,
highly critical and defamatory of the plain-
tiff, which were untrue, in acts of commission
or in omission, and this has been published
in the permanent files of the said paper, or
Pe. ¥2
on in to 1990; and Defendants either author-
ized or ratified or failed to point out any
corrections, of the said accounts, although
Defendants knew of the errors and defamatory
and false statements in the said account.
10. Defendant Prosecuting Attorney
William Frey, and Michigan State Trooper
Michael Murphy, denied Constitutional Rights
of the Plaintiff when, within one hour after
he had been operated, at the hospital in
Ann Arbor, each questioned him, about what had
transpired and happened.
ll. Defendants Frey, Murphy, and the
other defendants herein, prosecuted, and
continued to prosecute, without cause, but
from malice, Plaintiff, so that he was kept
in jail, until on or about March the 17th,
1989, although each knew, and should have
known, had each exercised ordinary care,
that Plaintiff was not guilty of the four
counts with which he was charged of Felonies.
Defendant Frey, during the course of his
being held in jail, offered to dismiss some
APP. SO
or all of the charges if Plaintiff would sign
a Civil release in favor of the Defendants
herein, or portions of them. In so doing,
Defendant Frey and Defendant Murphy violat-
ed the proper standards of those in their
position and proximately caused the Plain-
tiff to have to stay in jail much longer
than called for properly, by the law and
proper law enforcement. Further, Defendant
Frey and Defendant Murphy, worked to cause
a-cover-up of exactly what had happened by
each person involved, causing discredit
upon the Plaintiff, and probably unjustifi-
ably, unjustly, ypon some of the others
involved, leading to Plaintiff's arrest.
Defendant Frey and Defendant Murphy approxi-
mately caused a delay in the release of
Plaintiff without cause or legal justification
thereby denied Plaintiff's basic rights,
guaranteed by the Law, and the Constitutions
of the United States of American, and of
Michigan.
12. Plaintiff in March, 1989, and
AOP, S/
before was under great mental stress and
other mental problems, and Defendant Frey,
knwoing that Plaintiff would be acquitted
and found not guilty, and that Plaintiff was
under duress and direly wanted to be released,
just before the scheduled Trial, offered to
release Plaintiff if Plaintiff would plead
No Contest to a misdemeanor; and also Defen-
dant Frey, and those Defendants participating
in that offer, then and for a long time prior
thereto, knew that Plaintiff was not guilty,
ang Plaintiff under great duress did so
plead, and was released, but did not agree
to Defendant Frey's requests to release Defen-
dants, and Plaintiff so pleaded on the
ground that he could and would sue Defendants.
13. Wherefore, Plaintiff Mark E.
Vreeland prays that he may have and recover
judgment against each and all of the
Defendants, for $50,000, as to each, or more,
as herein before stated, and for the recovery
of his court costs and attorney fees herein;
and prays for Judgmep tg aginst Defendants
Townsend, Hardaway, Horvath, Lauwer, Gruber,
Sweat, Burkey, Bellino, Trobridge, also
Monroe County Sheriff, Monroe County Central
Dispatch, 9-1-1 Agency or Organization, Carl
VanWerdt, Kanevel, Murphy, Frey and Office of
the County Prosecutor.
Plaintiff Mark E. Vreeland by:
(S) John G. Rust
Jonn G. Rust, His Attorney
833 Security Building
Toledo, Ohio 43604
(419) 243-9191
JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON
Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all the
issues herein.
Mark E. Vreeland, by:
; (S) John G. Rust
John G. Rust
APR S24
APP. S2A
MICHIGAN STATUTES ANNOTATED,
SECTION 14.800. - SHERIFF'S DUTY TO
TAKE A MENTALLY ILL PERSON TO HOSPITAL
"§14.800(427) Pleas officer observing
personal conduct; custody and transportation
to hospital or notification of community
mental health emergency service unit;
procedure; application for hospitalization.)
Sec. 427. (1) If a peace officer observes
an individual conducting himself (or herself)
in a amnner which causes the peace officer to
reasonably believe that the individual is a
person requiring treatment as defined in
section 401, the peace officer may take the
individual into protective custody and
transport (the individual) to a hospital
for examination pursuant to section 429 (or
may notify the community mental health emer-
gency service unit for the purpose of request-
ing mental health intervention services. If
notified, the community mental health emergery
service unit shall provide those mental health
intervention services which it considers
appropriate unless the individual declines
the services. If the individual declines the
services, the peace officer shall immediately
transport the individual to a hospital. These
services may be provided at a site mutually
agreed upon by the peace officer and the
community mental health emergency service or
at the site of the community mental health
emergency service unit. In the course of
providing services, the community mental health
emergency service unit may provide advice and
consultation to the peace officer which may
include a recommendation to transport the
individual to a hospital for examination pur-
Suant to section 429, or to release the
individual from rpotective custody. However,
the peace officer is not constrained from
exercising his or her reasonable judgment.
If a peace officer determines that an indivi-
AFR SS
ndividual.
Immunity
1al shall be released from protectwe cutd
s a result of consultation with a ommwmity
tal health emergency service unit, the
munity mental health emergency service
t shall assure provision of follow-tw
inseling and diagnostic and referral
rvices as needed, unless the individual
lines the services. JPon arrival at
the hospital, the peace officer smll e&xeute
application for hospitalization of the
from financial regspomibilit.)
not befiancialy
2) A peace officer shall
responsible for the cost of care of an in-
dividual for whom a peace officer has executed
application under subsection (1).)
Notification of results of hospital
‘Xamination to community mental health senke
unit.) ((3) A hospital receiving an indivi-
lual pursuant to subsection (10 who has been
seen by a community mental health emergermry
service unit shall notify that unit of tk
results of an examination of that individual
conducted by the hospital.) (MCL §330.1427)
1978,
AS amended by Pub Acts
January
History.
No. 598, imd eff 4,1979."
TITLE 28, SECTION 1367
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
§1367. Supplemental jurisdiction
) Except as provided in subsections (b) and
c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Fed-
eral statute, in any civil action of which the
district courts have original jurisdiction,
the district courts shall have supplemental
jurisdiction over all other claims that are
so related to claims in the action within such
original jurisdiction that they form part of
the same case of controversy under Article
III of the United States Constitution. Such
supplemental jurisdiction shall include
claims that involve the joinder or interven-
tim of additional parties.
b) In any civil action of which the dis-
trict courts have original jurisdiction
founded solely on section 1332 of this title,
the district courts shall not have supple-
ental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over
claims by plaintiffs against persons made
parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over
laims by persons proposed to be joined as
l\intiffs under Rule 19 of such rules or
eking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule
4 of such rules, whea exercising supplemental
irisdiction over such claims would be incon-
istent with the jurisdictional requirements
section 1332
c) The district courts may decline to
xercise supplemental jurisdiction over a
-
laim under subsection (a) i
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex
1ssue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially pre-
dominates over the claim or claims over
which the district court has Original
jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed al]
Claims over which it has Original]
Jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there
are other compelling reasons for de-
Clining jurisdiction.
d) The period of limitations for any claim
isserted under subsection (a), and for any
ther claim in the same action that is vol-
intarily dismissed at the same time as or
itter the dismissal of the claim under sub-
section (a), shall be tolled while the claim
1s pending and for a period of 30 days after
Ape. 5¢é
t (Added
States.
he United otat
3Sion of the
r posses:
911 PHONE CALL OF MARK VREELAND
PPERATOR: CENTRAL DISPATCH, OPERATOR 24.
VREELAND: HELLO, OPERATOR?
je
sV/ «
MA
MO 4
MO:
A 4\/ o
THIS IS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. CAN I
HELP YOU?
WHO AM I SPEAKING TO?
OPERATOR 24.
DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?
NO.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A REPORTING.
OK.
MY NAME IS MARK EDWARD VREELAND.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
SIR, I BELIEVE I'M POSSESSED.
OK. DO YOU WANT TO HOLD ON?
YES, CAN I HELP YOU? SERGEANT TOWNSEND.
YES SIR. I'M NOT GOING TO BE ON THE LINE
VERY LONG,
U CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOU.
I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS.
WHAT ARE YOU NERVOUS ABOUT SIR?
WHAT?
WHAT ARE YOU NERVOUSE ABOUT?
APR S
App. 58
op)
~
ee
I'M JUST GOING TO LET YOU KNOW, I...
PARDON ME?
I FEEL A FORCE COMING IN.
OH, YOU DO?
IT'S COMING IN FROM, FROM, UH...
UFO?
NO, FAR AWAY
HOW FAR AWAY?
FAR AWAY.
JUPITER, MARS, UH, VENUS?
FAR AWAY.
FURTHER THAN THAT?
YES.
MARS IS WAY OUT THERE.
MY NAME IS MARK EDWARD VREELAND. MY
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IS 381-72-7986.
UH-HUH.
I FEEL SOMETHING THAT IT'S UNUSUAL.
SPELL YOUR LAST NAME,
V-R-E-E-L-A-N-D
OK. WELL WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WHAT DO YOU
FEEL, MARK? (HEAVY BREATHING) HELLO?
I'M STILL HERE.
PARDON ME? APP. SF
APP. 59
V:
ep)
WY
V3:
WM
I'M STILL HERE.
WHAT KIND OF SENSATION ARE YOU GETTING?
I'M PERFECTLY SOBER RIGHT NOW, OFFICER.
I BELIEVE YOU. HOW OLD ARE YOU?
I AM 23 YEARS OLD.
WHAT;S YOUR DATE OF BIRTH?
2/17/1964.
2/17/64?
YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
WHERE WERE BORN AT,MARK?
WYANDOTT, MICHIGAN.
OK, WHERE DO YOU LIVE?
MONROE, MICHIGAN.
WHERE ABOUT?
MONROE, MICHIGAN.
AT?
YEAH, I KNOW YOU LIVE IN MONROE. WHERE /
I DON'T KNOW.
DO YOU GOT ANY IDEA? DO YOU LIVE IN AN
APARTMENT COMPLEX?
I'M SORRY. I WON'T TELL YOU. I WILL TELL
YOU THIS, THAT THERE'S SOMETHING THERE...
THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE OUT THERE.
LIKE WHAT?
I DON'T KNOW.
WHAT ARE YOU NAT bp _:" (HEAVY
Ww
>t
BREATHING) ...MARK?... (HEAVY BREATHING)...
MARK, WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING ON TV?
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M WATCHING ON T.V.
NO MARK, WHAT? ARE YOU A WEREWOLD?
I'M WATCHING THE...UNAUDIBLE.
YOU WHAT?
(GROWLING, HEAVY BRETHING)
UNAUDIBLE...YOU'RE FLIPPING OUT RIGHT?
THE EGYPTIANS.
WHAT ARE YOU GROWLING FOR?
I'M SORRY.
YEAH.
PELASE RECORD WHAT I AM SAYING.
EATING EGYPTIANS?
I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA LET IT GO, OK?
THE PHAROAHS?
NO, I KNOW THIS, I KNOW YOU ARE RECORD-
ING EVERYTHING I TELL YOU. PLEASE
RECORD EVERYTHING. (HEAVY BREATHING)
UNAUDIBLE.
tke kkk keke keke keae*K
(HEAVY BREATHING IF YOU'RE WONDERING,
I'M IN VIET NAM. UNAUDIBLE.
keke kkkkekkkekeEeEKK
WOMAN OPERATOR: CENTRAL DISPATCH. . (HEAVY
BREATHING)...OK, IF THIS IS THE (QAZY
GUY THAT JUST CALLED US SAYING YOU'RE
APR 6]
POSSESSED, DON'T CALL US BACK ANYMORE.
THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP YOU.
kKkKeKKKKKKEKK
WO:
V:
WO:
V:
WO:
V:
WO:
Ve:
WO:
CENTRAL DISPATCH.
YOU WILL RECORD.
WE ARE RECORDING IT.
RECORD.
OK, WHAT DO YOU WANT US TQ DO?
I'M GONNA LET IT GO.
SO, LET IT GO.
RECORD.
GO RIGHT AHEAD.
KkKKKKKKKKSK
WO:
V:
WO:
WO:
WO:
CENTRAL DISPATCH.
YES, I WANT TO REVEAL MYSELF.
YOU'RE GOING TO REVEAL YOURSELF.
YES.
TO WHOM? IS THIS THE GUY THAT'S JUST
BEEN CALLING HERE?
MY NAME IS MARK EDWARD VREELAND.
OK.
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER 381-72-7986.
OK. WHAT' YOUR DATE OF BIRTH?
JUNE 17TH, 1964.
OK. DO WE HAVE A WARRANT FOR YOU OR
SOMETHING? APP. 62
APP 6x
NO. PLEASE MAM, THIS IS AN EMERGENCY.
OK. WHAT'S THE EMERGENCY? YOU'RE THE
ONE CALLING HERE BREATHING ON THE PHONE?
PLEASE.
WHAT DO YOU WANT?
THIS IS NOT ME. PLEASE.
OH, THIS IS THE WEREWOLF THAT'S INSIDE
YOU THAT'S BREATHING ON THE PHONE.
NO. THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING.
OK. WELL YOU'RE THE ONE WHO'S CALLING
HERE TALKING ALL THIS OFF THE WALL STUFF.
THIS BETTER BE AN EMERGENCY.
PLEASE LISTEN.
OK. I'M LISTENING...GO AHEAD.
(HEAVY BREATHING)
IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING, I
AM GOING TO HANG UP. OK. BECAUSE I
DON'T HAVE TIME. IF YOU WANT TO TALK,
I'LL LISTEN, BUT I DON'T HAVE TIME TO
LISTEN TO YOU BREATHE ON THE PHONE. SO
YOU DECIDE.
WHO AM I SPEAKING TO?
PARDON?
WHO AM I SPEAKING TO?
OPERATOR 6.
WHO IS THIS?
OPERATOR 6.
WHO IS OPERATOR 6?
APH &3
THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.
V: 666.... (LAUGHTER)
WO; SIR, CAN I HELP YOU?
V: 666....
KKKKKKKKK:K
WO: MR. VREELAND, STOP CALLING HERE. OK.
STOP CALLING HERE.
V: (GROWLING)
kk KKK KKK
V: I'M GOING TO KILL My MOTHER.
WO: WHERE ARE You CALLING FROM?
Ve I'M GOING TO KILL my MOTHER.
WO: YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU'RE SICK. YOU ARE
SICK AND DISGUSTING.
V: I KNOW I AM,
WO: YOU ARE SICK BASTARD. STOP CALLING HERE.
kKkkKKkkK kkk
LOTS OF BACKGROUND NOISE
LONG TONE
WO: IS THIS THE GUY THAT IS GOING TO KILL HIS
MOTHER?
Vs: YES.
WO: IF WE FIND ouT WHERE YOU ARE, YOU'RE
GOING TO JAIL. CONTINUOUS LONG TONE AND
HEAVY BREATHING. UNAUDIBLE WORDS.
"KK kKkkkkKE
MALE OPERATOR: CENTRAL DISPATCH
Vv; WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING ON T.V.?
APRE
'MO: HEY, I DON'T KNOW. WHAT ARE YOu
WATCHING?
I DON'T KNOW. WHAT ARE You WATCHING?
MO: WHO IS THIS?
WHO IS THIS.
MO: WHO IS THIS?
'v: I DON"? KNOW.
tkkkkkkkxzek
ag
WO: MR. VREELAND? IF YOU DON'T TELL US,
YOU ARE, DON'T EVEN BOTHER CALLING BACK
DOWN HERE. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
V: WHAT?
WON'T
WO: WHY DON'T YOU KILL YOURSELF? THEN WE /
HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT YOU ANYMORE.
kkkkkkkkkek
WO: CENTRAL DISPATCH. YES. YES.
kkk kk RK KKK
OPERATOR CALLED INFORMATION
§- RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
WO: ARE YOU BUSY?
I: NO. WHAT DO YOU NEED?
FIND
4O: OK. DO ME A FAVOR. SEE IF You CAN /
A CURRENT ADDRESS ON A GUY NAMED MARK
EDWARD VREELAND. V-R-E-E-L-A-N-D.
6/17/64.
I; OK.
"O: THANKS BYE.
> SERGEANT TOWNSEND...HELLO?'' "HELLO?
PPRES
V:
UNAUDIBLE.
PARDON?
I'M LISTENING.
LISTENING TO WHAT?
LISTENING TO YOU.
KEKKKKKKEKSK
WO:
Is
WO:
2
WO:
L3
WO:
Is:
WO:
CENTRAL DISPATCH.
UNAUDIBLE.
YES.
VREELAND?
YES.
266 HURD.
266 EAST HURD ROAD.
IT DOESN'T SAY.
IT'S PROBABLY EAST.
I FIGURED THAT IT WAS BY WINCHESTER.
OK. DID HE HAVE, UH, WHEN WAS THIS ADDRESS
ON EAST HURD ROAD MOST CURRENT?
HE SAID IT WAS 4/16, BUT..UNAUDIBLE.
OF THIS MONTH.
YES.
FOR WHAT
UNAUDIBLE..WHILE INTOXICATED.
OK. THIS FOOL IS CALLING ON TH PHQNE
APP.46 £No 267)
DRIVING US NUTS. OK. UH. HOW BIG ISH?
I UH...ABOUT 155 POUNDS, 5'10".
WO: OH AND ALSO, YOU KNOW WHEN YOU GAVE ME
THAT INFORMATION ON LARRY SMITH AND
JODI RAMSEY? WHATEVER..UM..I'VE BEEN IN
--»-UNAUDIBLE..WITH THOSE.
I: UMMM,
WO: OH DID THEY? GREAT. THANKS. BYE.
kKhk kk kk kK
V: HELLO.
WO: I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE AND I'M GOING TO
SEND A CAR THERE TO ARREST YOU.
V: WHERE DO I STAY AT?
WO: I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU BECAUSE THEN
YOU'LL LEAVE. NOW, I KNOW WHERE YOU
LIVE AND I KNOW YOU"VE JUST BEEN ING
ARRESTED A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO FOR CREAT-/
A DISTURBANCE WHILE YOU WERE DRUNK, LIKE
YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.
V: SO WHAT.
WO: SO WHAT, NOTHING. YOU GOING TO JAIL You
ASSHOLE.
V: SUCK MY DICK.
WO: NO, YOU SUCK IT YOURSELF, YOU PRICK.
kkk kk kk kkk
WO: CENTRAL DISPATCH...
V; FUCK YOU,
Kak Keak Kk Keka
APP, 68
CENTRAL DISPATCH.
I SAID... YOU'D WATCH ME BURN IN HELL
FOR 365.0.
HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU JUST KEEP ENJOY-
ING THE SOUNDM BUDDY, BECAUSE YOU'RE
GOING TO BE IN JAIL BEFORE 3:00.
kkk kK KKKRKK
SERGEANT TOWNSEND HERE.
I'M GOING TO BURN IN HELL FOR 365 DAYS.
FOR
I KNOW YOU WILL. AND YOU'LL BE IN JAIL/
365 DAYS. (VREELAND TALKING IN BACK-
GROUND, UNAUDIBLE) YOU ARE GOING TO BE
IN JAIL FOR 365 DAYS, DON'T WORRY ABOUT
IT. BUT...UNAUDIBLE.
LONGER THAN THAT.
THEN DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
kak kKkKKKEKK
LONG TONE.
WO: HEY, YOU BETTER BRING A TOOTHBRUSH
BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL.
Vs UNAUDIBLE.
kKkkkkkKkKKE
CONTINUOUS LONG TONE.
TALKING IN BACKGROUND.
V: FUCK YOU. DO YOU WANT ME OR WHAT?
HEY ARE YOUA SPACE CADE BY CHANCE?
SUCK MY DICK.
HEY, YOU DON'T HAVE ONE BUDDY. IF YOU
HAD A DICK, YOU'D BE DOWN HERE TO TALK
TO ME. AFF. oc?
APP 69
MO:
V:
FUCK YOU.
YOU'RE A PUSSY,
WHY DON'T YOU FICKIN! COME AND GET
LAUGHTER IN BACKGROUND.
* kk Kk ek kek
V: (HEAVY BREATHING & STRANGE NOISES)
DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD, DON'T you? DO
YOU WORSHIP HIM?
MO: ARE You REALLY A NUT?
V: I'VE GOT on
THE
MO: I'VE META LOT OF NUTS, BUT YOU'RE
FIRST ONE THAT BELIEVES IN GOD.
V: OH. UNAUDIBLE...BELIEVE IN GOD?
MO: YEAH, MOST OF THEM ARE ATHEISTS.
V: OH. YOU BELIEVE IN GOD.
MO: YEAH,
V: HEY.
MO: DO you BELIEVE IN THE ORIGINATION IF
DARWIN'S THEORY, UH, EVOLUTION OF LO
CHIMPANZEES INTO MAN? VREELAND, YOU
LIKE A CHIMPANZEE,
V: I TELL You WHAT...
Kk KKK KKK
WO: CENTRAL DISPATCH,
P; HELLO.
WO: HI. I NEED YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR,
P: WHAT KIND OF FAVOR?
WO: WE G
K
OTY SOME FOOL Op Jo PSSTARD ON TH
Oo
WO:
WO:
PHONE WHO HAS BEEN DRIVING US CRAZY.
OH YEAH?
I NEED YOU TO GO OUT TO THE HOUSE AND SEE
IF YOU CAN TALK HIM INTO SLUGGING YA, SO
YOU CAN BRING HIM INTO JAIL.
OH YEAH?
HE LIVES AT 266 E. HURD ROAD.
OK.
HIS NAME IS MARK EDWARD VREELAND.
HEY, I THINK I KNOW HIM.
HE JUST GOT ARRESTED 3 OR 4 DAYS AGO FOR
CREATING A DISTURBANCE IN THE CITY.
MARK WHAT?
MARK EDWARD VRELAND. 6/17 of 64. 266
E. HURD ROAD IS WHERE BILL YOUNGBLOOD
IF YOU KNOW HIM. LIVES/
YEAH, I KNOW BILL.
OK. BECAUSE I KNOW THIS GUY IS CRAZY TOO.
HE'S TALKING ABOUT KILLING HIS MOTHERAND
ROTTING IN HELL AND SUCK MY DICK AND
YOU'RE A PUSSY AND DAT, DAT, DAT, DAT AND
ALL THIS STUFF. HE'S DRIVING US NUTS.
VREELAND?
YES.
HOW DO YOU SPELL THE LAST NAME?
V-E, OH EXCUSE ME. V-R-E-E-L-A-N-D
SO WHAT'S THE COMPLAINT?
HE'S DRIVING US CRAZY. (LAUGHTER)
APP +14
HE JUST KEEPS CALLING THEN?
YEAH, CAN'T YOU, UM, UM, IF YOU KNOW,
I'LL BE THE COMPLAINTIFF FOR HARASSING
PHONE CALLS OR SOMETHING. TOWNEY SAYS
HE THINKS YOU CAN DO THAT.
OH YEAH. Lt*S » UNAUDIBLE, OR SOME-
THING LIKE THAT
YEAH, MISUSE OF A COMMUNICATION DEVICE.
YEA.
THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
IT'S A MISDEMEANOR.
HE'S DRIVING US NUTS. I'VE GOT HIM
TRACKED ON THE PHONE RIGHT NOW, SO IF
YOU LOOK THROUGH THE WINDOWS AND YOU SEE
HIM ON THE PHONE, THEN YOU KNOW YOU GOT
THE RIGHT HOUSE CAUSE IT'S HIM.
OH.
I SAID I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE AND I SAID
YOU BETTER BRING A TOOTHBRUSH AND SOME
SOAP ON A ROPE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO
BE IN JAIL BEFORE 3:00.
DID YOU?
YEAH. (LAUGHTER)...SO HOPEFULLY...
SO HOW MANY TIMES HAS HE CALLED YOU?
OH, PROBABLY ABOUT 20 TIMES WITHIN THE
PAST HALF OF AN HOUR. WE GOT HIM
TRAPPED, UH, LET ME SEE IF HE'S STILL ON
THE PHONE...HE'S GONE NOW. HE HUNG UP,
BUT HE'LL BE CALLING BACK IN A MINUTE.
HMMM. OK. WE'LL GO OUT THERE AND SEE
WHAT WE CAN DO.
OK. THANK YOU.
APE
APP. 1d
P:
WO:
BYE.
BYE.
kkk KK kKkKK
WO:
V:
WO:
V:
CENTRAL DISPATCH. OPERATOR 6.
I THINK ISRAEL IS MANIPULATING WARHEADS.
DON'T YOU?
I THINK SO TOO.
YOU'RE GONNE BE MINE PRETTY SOON.
YEAH, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE
YOU'RE GOING TO BE MINE BUDDY.
MATTER OF TIME. YOU'RE RIGHT.
YEAH, IT'S A MATTER OF TIME FOR YOU AND
YOU BETTER BRING SOME SOAP ON A ROPE
WITH A TOOTHBRUSH, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING
TO JAIL.
I'LL BURN IN YOUR HELL AS LONG AS I CAN.
HEY THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I'LL PROBABLY SEE
YOU DOWN THERE. YOU NEVER KNOW.
IT'S AN ILLUSION. WHEN IT'S ALL...
UNAUDIBLE...YOU WILL BELONG TO MY WORLD.
I'M..UNAUDIBLE..FOR YOU.
kKkkkkkke
MO:
UNAUDIBLE.
ISRAEL'S MANIPULATING WARHEADS.
HEY, WHY DON'T YOU BITE MY ASS AND GET
OFF THE PHONE.
APR 8
Are 73
MO:
MO:
AND YOU CAN'T DO NOTHING ABOUT IT.
YOU ARE A SICK SUCKER, BUDDY. YOU KNOW
WE HAVE POLICE WORK TO DO. HEY...YUWWJS!
LAY THERE. HEY, YOU CAN JUST SIT THERE
AND DRINK YOUR JUICE OR SMOKE YOUR POT
OR SNIFF YOUR CRACK, BUT WE CAN'T DO
THAT, OK?
IN HELL FROM THE DEVILS. (MISSLE NOISES)
ISRAEL (MISSLE NOISES).
ILITOLA KUMANY IS GOING TO GET YOU, TOO,
BUDDY.
KKEKKKKEK
WO:
V:
WO:
CENTRLA DISPATCH.
YES, SO ARE YOU GOING TO HELP MY MOTHER?
ARE YOU GOING TO HELP YOURSELF? YOU'RE
THE ONE THAT NEEDS HELP.
I'M ASKING YOU A QUESTION. ARE YOU
GOING TO HELP MY MOTHER?
YEAH, WHERE IS YOUR MOM?
IN THE TRAILER COURT.
SHE LIVES IN THE TRAILER PARK? WHAT'S
THE ADDRESS WHERE SHE IS?
775 E. OUTER DRIVE.
775? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? MR,
VREELAND?
YOU KNOW WHERE SHE'S AT.
NO, I DON'T KNOW WHERE SHE IS. WHERE
ARE YOU CALLING FROM? AVPI4
App. 74
ARE YOU GOING TO HELP HER?
YEAH, WHAT DO you WANT ME TO DO?
PROTECT HER FROM. .UNAUDIBLE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROTECT HER FROM,
UM, UNAUDIBLE..FROM YOU.
I DON'T KNOW. you GUYS ARE GOING TO HAVE
TO PROTECT HER FROM EVIL.
NO. YOU'RE THE ONE THAT SOUNDS LIKE
YOU'RE EVIL.
NO. I'M NOT EVIL. I BELIEVE IN GOD,
DON'T I? ;
I DON'T KNOW WHAT you BELIEVE IN.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.
PARDON?
ARE YOU GOING TO PROTECT HER FROM
EVIL?
YES, WE WILL.
HOW?
I'LL SEND A PATROL CAR OVER THERE WITH
A CROSS AND SOME GARLIC AND THEY'LL
KEEP THE EVIL AWAY FROM HER.
I WANT TO FUCK YOU IN THE MIDDLE OF
THE ROAD.
YOU DO?
YEAH.
APP. 75
APP. 75°
YOU SOUND LIKE YOU LIKE TO SLEEP WITH
OTHER MEN. BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY
DIFFERENCE, YOU'RE GOING TO GET YOUR
OPPORTUNITY ‘CAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE
IN JAIL BEFORE LONG, BECAUSE I GOT A
CAR ON THE WAY TO YOUR HOUSE NOW.
OH, BUT YOU SAID THAT SO LONG AGO.
NO. IT WASN'T SO LONG AGO. I TOLD
YOU THAT ABOUT ]5 MINUTES AGO. I
HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN ABOUT YOU. DON'T
WORRY.
ARE YOU GOING TO PROTECT MY MOTHER FROM
EVIL?
YEAH. WE'RE GOING TO PROTECTHER FROM
YOU ‘CAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE THAT'S SICK.
I KNOW. AIN'T THAT FUNNY?
WHERE'S YOUR FATHER? IS HE STILL
ALIVE?
SO, ARE YOU GOING TO PROTECT MY MOTHER
FROM EVIL?
I'M SURPRISED YOUR MOTHER IS STILL ALIVE.
I'M SURPRISED SHE HASN'T KILLED HERSELF
WITH A SON LIKE YOU.
Vs HMMMMM.
kkkk kkk
MO: CENTRAL DISPATCH.
V: ARE YOU GOING TO PROTECT MY MOTHER?
= “2 *“fET ME GQ I'LL BE ALLRIGHT IN HE
Mice
A PP. 76
OK. GOOD. TAKE 3 ASPIRINS AND GO TO
BED, SIR.
NO. JUST LET ME GO.
OK BYE.
NO.
YOU LIVE ON HURD ROAD.
NO. ARE YOU GOING TO PROTECT MY MOTHER
FROM EVIL?
OH YEAH. I'LL BE RIGHT OVER THERE. WHERE
DOES SHE LIVE?
FUCK YOU. YOU SON OF A BITCH.
UNAUDIBLE. FUCK ME? YOU CAN'T FUCK ME.
I'M A MALE.
I WANT TO FUCK YOU ANYWAYS.
OH DO YOU REALLY?
IN YOUR MOUTH.
DO YOU REALLY?
I WANT TO SEE YOU..UNAUDIBLE.
HEY, I GET OFF AT 7:00. MEET ME IN
FRON' OF THE JAIL.
CRACK AND AIDS IS WINNING.
MEET ME IN FRONT OF THE JAIL AT 7:00.
OH YOU REALLY DO WANT TO FUCK ME THEN?
FIVE FOOT 10, 180 LBS., I DRIVE A BLACK
MONTE CARLO. APR11
Afr. 77
MO:
THAT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME.
LOOK, I JUST THOUGHT I'D TALK TO YA. IF
YOU WANT TO GET INTO My PANTS, THEN
MEET ME,
I'D LOVE TO KILL YOU.
KILL ME?..UNAUDIBLE..
NAW, I'D RATHER KILL YOU.
OH, COME ON.
YES, I JUST LOVE TO KILL.
WELL COME ON DOWN AND SEE ME TOMORROW
MORNING. I GET OFF AT 7:00.
NAW.
YOU WANT TOKILL ME, COME MY WAY.
YOU COME MY WAY.
NO. NO. COME SEE ME .
HEAD NORTH. NORTH IS GOD'S WAY, AIN'T
IT?
YEAH.
HEAD WAY,
OK THEN. THE PHAROAH'S OF EGYPT ALWAYS
HEADED NORTH. SO I'LL SEE YA,
OF COURSE THEY DID. OF COURSE...
UNAUDIBLE.
YOU'VE HEARD OF TUT, THE BOY KING? THE
GUY DIED AT 19. APP. 18
APA 18
V:
UM-HMM,
KKK KKKKK
MO:
CENTRAL DISPATCH.
WHO AM I TALKING TO?
WHO IS THIS?
NO. WHO AM I TALKING TO?
THIS IS OPERATOR 24.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S YOUR NAME.
THIS IS OPERATOR 24, WHO IS THIS.
NO, WHAT'S YOUR NAME?
kKkKKKKkKKK
MISSLES BOMBING SOUNDS
FIRST PART WAS UNAUDIBLE.
V:
MO:
V:
MO:
I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH VIOLENCE.
UNAUDIBLE. I'M FROM IRELAND.
ARE YOU GOING TO FOLLOW THE NORTH STAR?
YOU GOT IT. TELL ME WHERE TO FOLLOW AND
I'LL MEET YOu THERE.
HURD ROAD,
266?
YES, EXACTLY,
OK. I'LL SEE YA TOMORROW MORNING.
APP.14
APP. 79
NO. TONIGHT.
I'M WORKING,
THAT'S YOUR JOB.
I KNOW, BUT I'LL SEE YOU IN JAIL.
ARE YOU GOING TO PROTECT MY MOTHER?
WHAT'S HER ADDRESS...WHAT'S HER ADDRESS?
HELLO? WHAT'S HER ADDRESS?
666 HADES.
666 WHAT?
666 HADES.
WHERE'S HADES AT?
fuck you.
YOU'D LIKE TO.
I'D LOVE TO.
IS THAT YOUR FACE OR DID YOUR PANTS
DROP, BUDDY? GO TO BED.
kKkkek kk kk
UNAUDIBLE
HE LIVES AT 266 E. HURD ROAD.
NO. I DON'T KNOW HIM. 266 E HURD ee
BLOOD
YEAH, YOU KNOW THAT'S WHERE BILL YOUNG-/
LIVES OR THAT'S WHERE HE USED TO LIVE.
YEAH. APP. gO
APP 80
WO:
WO:
WO:
WO:
THE
THAT LITTLE PRICK'S BEEN CALLING US ON /
PHONE FOR HOURS.
FOR WHAT?
DRIVING US NUTS. 50 I SENT SCHAEFER
AND WEIMAN OVER THERE. I WANT THEM TO
ARREST HIM OR SOMETHING. CENTRAL TO 33
NEWPORT. YOU GOT A RESCUE CALL. VICTIM
OF AN ASSAULT. 8345 NORTH DIXIE.
8-3-4-5 NORTH DIXIE. J]/2 MIL NORTH
OF SCHWAN CREEK ROAD. THEY WERE GOING
TO WRITE A COMPLAINT ASKING ME TO COMBAIN
ABOUT A MISUES OF A COMMUNICATIONS DE-
VICE. THEN THEY HAD TO GO TO A CALL
ON NORTH DIXIE, SO WE HAD TO.CALL OFF
THAT ONE, BUT I WAS THINKING IF THEY
GO OVER THERE AND MAYBE THAT GUY WOULD
TAKE A SWING AT THEM OR SOMETHING, THEY
COULD BRING HIM IN.
WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN HE CALLED?
HE'S TALKING ABOUT HE'S GOING TO KILLUS
AND HE'S A WEREWOLF AND HE'S POSSESSED.
AND, AND...
I DON'T WANT TO GO OVER THERE, THEN.
NO, I DON'T WANT you TO GO 'CAUSE YOU'RE
BY YOURSELF. I'M JuSsT WONDERING IF you
KNEW HIM OR NOT.
WE DON'T NEED ANYMORE WIERDOS.
NO. NO. NO.
I CAN GO SPOTLIGHT HIS HOUSE IF You
WANT. OR MAYBE YOU CAN GET VANDER-
COOK,
APF $I
APP. &|
WO: OK. I'LL TELL HIM WE'RE GOING TO SEND
DEPUTY VANDERCOOK OVER THERE IF HE
CALLS BACK. UM, HE'S GOING TO KILL US.
TOWNEY TOLD HIM TO MEET HIM HERE IN FROM
OF THE JAIL AT 7:00 WHEN HE GETS OFF WORK.
E's OH YEAH?
WO: LIKE A DUMMY.
Ps UNAUDIBLE..HIS CAR OR SOMETHING.
WO: I DON'T KNOW. THE GUY IS GOOFY.,
Ps I'LL RIDE BY THERE A FEW TIMES.
WO: OK. THANKS.
oe BYE.
WO: BYE.
KkKKkKKK:
W: RECORDS.
M: HEY.
WO: YEAH,
M: ON THAT VREELAND THAT YOU LOOKED AT.
W: UH-HMM,
M: IS THERE A TELEPHONE NUMBER THERE?
W: I CAN PULL THE FILE AND CALL YOU RIGHT
BACK.
kkkkkkke
VREELAND BREATHING HEAVY.
APP.82
APP. 82
YOU START WALKING, OK? WE'LL CATCH YOU
LATER.
OH MY GOD, IT"S NICE.
OK...HAVE A GOOD TIME.
kKkKKKKKKK
WO: WHAT MOVIE ARE WATCHING?
V: THE BOOK OF LIFE.
THE BOOK OF LIFE?
YEAH.
OH, I'M SURPRISED YOU'RE NOT WATCHING
THE THREE FACES OF DEATH OR SOMETHING.
I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW...
YEAH, YOU'RE TELLING ME. YOU'VE BEEN
TELLING ME FOR THE PAST 20 MINUTES,
YOU'RE GOING TO KILL YOUR MOTHER. I
KNOW.
NO. KILL ME.
WELL, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO OBLIGE YOU.
I WANT TO MAKE YOU...UNAUDIBLE.
YOU ARE GOING TO DO WHAT?
(GROANING) I DON'T LIKE IT...I DON'T
LIKE IT...I DON'T LIKE IT...FUCK YOU...
(HEAVY BREATHING) ...UH...
WHAT?
WELL, IT'S AFTER MIDNIGHT
APP. &5
APR 8&3
WO:
WO:
V;
UH-HUH.
I'M GONNA BE WALKING. ..UNAUDIBLE.
YEAH. YOU'RE GONNA GO. WHAT'S YOUR
MOTHER'S ADDRESS? 775 E.OUTER DR“VE?
IS THAT WHAT YOUSAID? SHOULDN'T 17 BE
FOUR DIGITS ON E. OUTER DRIVE?
UNAUDIBLE.
KKKKKKKK
V:
WO:
WO:
HELLO, I'M GOING TO BE STRAIGHT UP WITH
YOU. ALL RIGHT? UM... I DON'T KNOW IF
I'M LOSING MY FUCKING MIND. I DON'T
KNOW WHAT THE FUCK'S HAPPENING WITH ME
ANYMORE. BUT, UH...
GO AHEAD.
IT FEELS LIKE THIS EVIL FORCE IS COMING,
I DON'T KNOW WHERE IN THE FUCK THIS
THING IS, UH.. I JUST KNOW THERE'S
SOMETHING UH..DRIVING ME TO, UH...KILL
MY OWN MOTHER.
OK. AND WHAT DO YOU WANT THE POLICE TO
DO ABOUT IT?
MY MOTHER HAS ALWAYS... MY MOTHER HAS
BEEN GOOD.
UH-HMM. WELL YOU WERE THE ONE WHO WAS
TALKING ABOUT KILLING HER.
BUT I'M GONNA KILL AND THERE'S NO..
I'M GONNA...I'11 PULL A GUN ON ANYBODY ¢
I'LL KILL.
OK. WHERE DO YOU LIVE?
APP. BY
FUCK YOU.
AFP. 84
WO:
WO:
WE11, YOU'RE THE ONE WHO CALLED HERE.
YOU'RE THE ONE WHO KEEPS CALLING HERE.
I'M GOING TO BE CARRYING A GUN.
AND YOU'RE LEAVING YOUR HOUSE, WALKING,
TO GO OVER TO YOUR MOTHER'S HOUSE TO KILL
HERE, RIGHT?
YOU CAN'T STOP ME.
I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO STOP YOU. I
COULD CARE LESS. WE'LL STOP YOU, DON'T
WORRY ABOUT THAT.
I KNOW.
YOU'RE.
I'M CARRYING A GUN.
OK. WHAT KIND OF GUN?
49 CALIBER.
A WHAT KIND?...HELLO?...(GROANING BY
VREELAND) ...WHERE DI YOU GO TO SCHOOL?
-MARK?...MARK.
I'M COMING...OHHHHH...I'M COMING...I
DON'T CARE IF YOU KILL ME. PLEASE KILL
ME...WHO AM I TALKING TO?
MARK, 7 -MARK,
WHO AM I TALKING TO?
WHERE DID YOU GO TO SCHOOL?
HELLO? ...MUMBLING AND UNAUDIBLE.
WHERE DIDYOU GO TO SPP e
-
APP. 85
V:
(MOANDING AND UNAUDIBLE) I CAN SEE THE
BLUE...I CAN SEE Aas
YOU CAN SEE THE BLUE WHAT?
THE BLUES...
THE BLUE WHAT?
I CAN SEE IT,
YOU CAN SEE THE BLUE WHAT?
WOMAN'S VOICE: MARK, WHERE DI you GO
TO SCHOOL?
iT*’S REAL...
WO: WHAT KIND OF BLUE CAN YOU SEE?
I DON'T FUCKIN' BELIEVE IT'S REAL.
WO: WHAT KIND OF BLUE CAN YOU SEE?
I DON'T FUCKIN’ BELIEVE IT'S REAL.
YOU BETTER GOD DAMN BELIEVE IT'S REAL.
WO: MARK?
(GROANING)...I CAN SEE IT COMING. I CAN
SEE THE BLUE.
WO: MARK...
WHO AM I TALKING TO?
WO: MY NAME IS FAYE. WHAT SCHOOL DID you
GO TO?
I CAN'T SEE THE BLUE ANYMORE. BUT IT'S
REAL. I"LL TELL YOU ONE THING. it's
RAVE LEBY GEE Ry TO FAX - ARIAL THAR A,,
ao Wis.
APF. 86
ee
OLD WO: HEY MARK,
V: I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT Is.
OLD WO: MARK?
V: I CAN'T STOP...I'M COMING...I CAN'T stop
IT. IT'S NOTHING MAN CAN COMPREHEND,
ITS UH..:IT'S REAL. ..UNAUDIBLE.
OLD WO: MARK... (VREELAND GROANING AND HUNG UP)
kkk kkkkK:
WO: CENTRAL 5 and Ya
M: YES.
WO: OK, UH, DID YOU pO THE THING WITH THE
LIGHTS LIKE WE DISCUSSED oN THE PHONE?
(THE REST WAS UNAUDIBLE BECAUSE OF OTHER
TALKING)
kkk K KKK
WO: CENTRAL DISPATCH.
MAN: YES, I WAS WONDERING, COULD YOU SEND A
SHERIFF'S CAR OUT HER TO 266 E. HURD
ROAD?
WO: OK. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
M: OK. MARK VREELAND HAS BEEN STAYING WITH
US. OK? AND HE'S BEEN DRINKING AND HE
SAYS I LOVE YOU BILL, I LOVE You LINDA,
MY DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, HERE. I DON'T KNOW
HE GOT A HOLD OF ONE OF My GUNS OR WHAT,
BUT I WANT HIM PICKED UP.
WO: OK. HE'S BEEN CALLING US ALL NIGHT LONG.
HAVE YOU BEEN THERE? YOU'VE BEEN SLEEP-
IivG OR WHAT? ry PP. 8-1
APP. 81]
WO:
I'VE BEEN SLEEPING,
OK. HE'S BEEN CALLING US FOR THE PAST
Z¥.G HOURS.
HOW COME?
WELLL, I DON'T KNOW. PROBABLY BECAUSE
HE'S CRAZY.
YEAH.
UM. +.
BECAUSES HE'S BEEN THREATENING TO KILL
HIS MOTHER AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE BOTHERED
WITH HIM. MY LITTLE GRANDSON JUST GOT
HIT BY A CAR AND I DON'T NEED THIS SHIT.
NO. OR WHERE DOES THIS GUY'S MOTHER
LIVE, DO YOU KNOW?
WILLAVENE TRAILER PARK.
OK. HE TOLD ME THAT SHE LIVED AT 775
E. OUTER DRIVE, BUT THAT'S NOT A GOOD
ADDRESS.
WELL, I THINK IT'S 10 SOMETHING...IT'S
---UH, OUTER DRIVE. _AS YOU GO INTO
WILLAVENE TRAILER PARK, TURN LEFT AND
TAKE THE FIRST LITTLE CURVE RIGHT THERE.
SHE'S GOT A BLUE AND WHITE TRAILER.
IT'S GOT AN EAGLE ON THE FRONT OF IT.
NOW HE WAS IN TROUBLE HERE A WHILE BACK,
YOU GUYS ARRESTED HIM OUT THERE.
YEAH, I KNOW. HE JUST GOT ARRESTED A
COUPLE OF DAYS AGO. WHAT'S THE LADY'S
NAME?
FLORENCE. AeR £8
APR 68
WO: FLORENCE VREELAND?
M: RIGHT. BUT, I DON'T KNOW, MAM. I JUST
GOT UP OUT OF BED. HE WOKE US UP...
BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN AT THE HOSPITAL EVER
SINCE MY LITTLE GRANDSON GOT HIT.
WO: OK. DO YOU KNOW WHICH DIRECTION HE TOOK
OFF WALKING ON YOUR STREET, SIR?
M: I DON'T KNOW.
WO: OK. WHAT'S YOUR TELEPHONE ‘NUMBER.
M: 241-004 (THAT IS WHAT IS SAID)
WO: OK,
M: BECAUSE I'M NOT EVEN SURE A MAN LIKE
UNAUDIBLE TOOK A GUN OUT OF THE HOUSE.
BACKGROUND NOISE...A MAN PULLED A GUN AND
WE SHOT HIM...
WO: OH MY G...OK, UH...THANKS...WE GOT HIM...
WE JUST FOUND HIM. THANK YOU...BYE-BYE.
kKkkkkkkk
THE UNIT WITH THE SUBJECT, IDENTIFY BY CAR
NUMBER.
CAR OFFICER: 7
WO: UNAUDIBLE, RETAIN YOUR LOCATION.
CO: NO PROBLEM
WO: OK. START UP THAT WA. HOT, ¢ MONROE rae
BEEN DERLINGOWIAA HA REPT OMe, Ns
A OACH WITH CAUTION. ;
R
4
VISED. THE COUNTY AND’'S
TRAFFIC ONLY, EXCEPT FO
A P?P.89
WO:
WO:
WO:
----25 CAR BEHIND US, A TWO MAN UNIT.
CENTRAL 25, B-BOYS.
GO AHEAD,
OK. I NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE. ..UNAUDIBLE
---SINGLE MAN; MENTAL SUBJECT WITH A
SHOT GUN, NORTH MONROE AND HURD.
CLEAR.
5127, SECURITY STATUS.
HE'S OFF A WAYS DOWN THE ROAD. OK?
OK. I'VE GOT 2 OTHER UNITS ENROUTE.
JUST KEEP US ADVISED.
7? TO CENTRAL. HE CAME ACROSS THE ROAD.
HE'S...UH...WALKING TOWARDS MY CAR,
59110. YOUR LOCATION.
CENTRAL 25 B-BOYS. YOUR LOCATION PLEASE.
COMING UP ON THE 75 SANDY CREEK.
9127 SECURITY.
UNAUDIBLE.
OK. I GOT A SINGLE MAN UNIT THERE NOW.
HE SAID THE SUBJECT WAS APPROACHING HIS
CAR WITH A WEAPON. OK. FOR THE UNITS
RESPONDING TO THIS, I CANNOT STRESS, WE
HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS GUY ON THE
PHONE ALL NIGHT LONG. PLEASE APPROACH
WITH CAUTION. HE SAID HE WOULD NOT
HESITATE TO KILL.
CENTRAL 5127 SECURITY STATUS.
EXACT LOCATION,
APP.A5
Ape. 90
WO:
)
Wo:
WO:
OK. I LAST HAD HIM AT NORTH MONROE AND
HURD. HE SAID HE WAS APPROACHING THE CAR
WITH THE WEAPONG. CENTRAL 5127. OK.
APPARENTLY HIS WEAPON IS POSSIBLY A 20
GAGE SHOTGUN.
WE GOT HIM IN SITE. WE'RE APPROACHING
HIM NOW.
OK. VERY GOOD.
CENTRAL FROM 25 B.
TO KEEP YOU UP-TO-DATE. SUBJECT IS
STANDING WITH THE SHOTGUN. WE'RE
TRYING TO ORDER IT OUT OF HIS HAND.
HE'S DRINKING BEER OR SOMETHING. HE'S
NOT LISTENING TO US.
OK. YOU...UNAUDIBLE.
I'LL BE THERE SHORTLY.
OK ll.
PAUSE.
5110?
GET AN AMBULANCE OUT HERE.
OK..-CENTRAL 517.
AND 7 START UP THAT WAY.
IS THERE A PROBLEM?
5110.
WE DON'T NEED ANYMORE ASSISTANCE. WE
NEED AN AMBULANCE. |
OK. WE'VE GOT AN AMBULANCE ENROUTE. 5}7.
DISREGARD. WE GOT AN AMBULANCE ENROUFE.
APP. Fy
UNAUDIBLE.
as 8,
UNAUDIBLE
Sy
GET A HOLD OF SOME KIND OF COMMAND
OFFICER TO RESPOND OUT HERE.
GO AHEAD.
OK. YOUR AMBULANCE IS RESPONDING FROM
MERCY. THE OTHER SHERIFF IS ENROUTE,
WOULD YOU LIKE A RESCU SQUAD?
THE AMBULANCE SHOULE BE OK.
UNAUDIBLE...I'M BRINGING DRIVER 27 INTO
THE OFFICE. WAIT THERE.
OK.
CENTRAL 25 B-BOYS.
CENTRAL 25 B.
WE WILL BE BRING IN 1511'S PRISONER.
OK. THANK YOU.
UNAUDIBLE THROUGH TONE.
Ge
CENTRAL DISPATCH.
hd»
CHECK WITH COMMAN, BUT j BELIEVE YOU'RE
GONNA NEED. .UNAUDIBLE..TO HANDLE THIS
PROPERLY.
YEAH, WE'LL TRY TO GET IT TAKEN CARE OF.
(
-ND OF TAPE)
AFP 72
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.