LPD's Officer Gilmurray Pursues His Masters, Part 2: Casing Before the Casino

[XLFD]

This is the second of at least three parts of a true ongoing story about a small-town policeman named Michael Gilmurray and his unlawful hounding and persecution of a local woman named Janice Masters.  In part 1, we saw Officer Gilmurray violate a host of policies in the Ludington Police Department's (LPD) manual and violate a variety of statutes and Masters' basic civil rights while conducting a traffic stop in December of 2022.  

In that stop we noticed that there was at least a basis for stopping Masters' car (a damaged headlight from a deer crash and the lack of a license plate on a recently purchased vehicle).  In this stop, two months prior in October, Gilmurray stops a vehicle driven by Lindsey Klastow with Janice Masters in the passenger seat and Masters' boyfriend in the backseat.  You may recognize Klastow's name from The Hand That Prosecutes the Innocent, where we find she is being prosecuted for a felony by picking up a phone dropped on the ground by her love interest, who was being unlawfully arrested at the time by Gilmurray and LPD Captain Haveman. 

Both Klastow and Masters have suffered a lot of damage to their careers in the medical field from the actions of Gilmurray, assisted by and supervised by Captain Haveman.  Neither of the women have any other blemish on their criminal record other than the two felonies that are alleged against them for picking up a cell phone and picking up game cards (to be explored in pt. 3).

We find here that Gilmurray notices Klastow's car leave Masters' residence in the Fourth Ward.  The women notice the officer's car following them as they travel through the Fourth Ward for several blocks and a couple of turns.  Gilmurray activates the light when they are heading east on First Street and initiates a stop; in due time we find that the reason for the traffic stop is objectively bogus and the ensuing search of the vehicle and the women's purses is equally baseless and far from kosher.  Let's go over a couple of basics.

 

The police need a legal basis to pull over a car. That legal basis is one of two reasons:

1. Reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a civil infraction.
2. Probable cause that a crime has been committed.

The first reason is the easiest to achieve, an officer can pull a car over for being 1 mph over the speed limit or for not signaling a turn.  Coincidentally, both are averred to have happened here, but absent either of the above reasons, an officer has no rationale to conduct a traffic stop, recognized as a seizure.  If a stop has been initiated for speeding or failure to signal, there normally isn't any reason for a search of the car unless the officer can establish and articulate a valid reason for the search arising from observations made during the stop. 

We will look at these principles and others as we analyze the totally unlawful traffic stop that took place ten days before last Halloween.  Notice particularly in the video how Gilmurray concentrates not on the topic of the stop itself, but on the passenger of the vehicle, Janice Masters, her purse, and her coat pockets.  A transcription of most of the contact is offered, with analysis (when warranted) over what was happening and how unlawful it was, looking at precedent and legal principles found in case law and attorney websites.

Gilmurray approaches the passenger side where Masters sits as passenger, exchanges greetings with Klastow, then:

Klastow:  Why did you pull me over? [cross talk]

Gilmurray:  What's that?

Klastow:  What was your reasoning for pulling me over?

Gilmurray:  Do you have your license, registration, proof of insurance?  Come out and I'll talk with you.

Klastow:  I sure do.

ANALYSIS:  Notice how Gilmurray deftly avoids answering the question of why he conducted the stop, changing the topic by asking for paperwork, while ordering her out of the car.  Under,  Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), a U.S. Supreme Court case, a police officer is allowed to remove you from the car if he/she feels unsafe during a lawful traffic stop.  The case makes it clear it must be a lawful stop and detainment, which hasn't yet been established in this case, and never will be in the 15 minutes it takes.  It does make the unlawful search coming up a bit easier to perform.

Gilmurray: Where you guys heading off to?

Klastow:  We were going to go to the casino, but...

Gilmurray: You going to the casino?  OK, which one? (cross talk) Manistee?  You react like that was a dumb question but there's a lot of casinos.

Klastow:  I just don't understand why you pulled me over.

Gilmurray:  Why don't you just hop out (edit, LEIN data on radio)

ANALYSIS:  Once again Gilmurray avoids the direct question of why the stop was made and orders her out of the vehicle without telling her why.

Klastow:  (searching thru purse) Dude, I just got my ID today... I don't know where it is... can't you just look it up?

Gilmurray:  Lawfully you need it on you.

Klastow:  I found it!

Gilmurray:  Alright, grab it and hop on out for me.

Klastow:  Why do I have to get out of the car? (asked also by Masters)

Gilmurray:  Because I asked you to.

ANALYSIS:  A federal district court has ruled:  An officer may order every single person out of a car at will if he wants to so long as it is for safety reasons (also if there a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity). However, an officer may not simply order a driver out of the car for curiosity or for some other impermissible motive.  Gilchrist v. State, 757 So.2d 583 (2000).  As given, Gilmurray's order is unlawful.

Masters:  I know you asked her to.

Klastow:  He's bossy, I don't know

Gilmurray:  I'm not bossy (Klastow and Gilmurray move to the back of the car).  Alright you have it all back here?  The reason why I stopped you was that you didn't use your turn signal leaving Janices' house, OK, and you speeded down here...

Klastow:  Oh, at the stop sign?  (MG avoids question)

ANALYSIS:  The women were aware that the officer was following them, they were not speeding and the officer's dashcam would reflect that had he pressed this issue.  He didn't, nor did he press the other issue when he said that Klastow didn't signal when he left the driveway of Janice's house, for that is not a civil infraction.  One is not legally obligated to signal a turn when coming from a private driveway only on a road/highway (MCL257.648).  There would be no further discussion on the two bogus infractions, instead Gilmurray (pictured below) concentrated on the female passenger sitting patiently in the car.

Gilmurray:  So what were you doing at Janice's?

Klastow:  Um, we hang out...

Gilmurray:  You hang out, OK, and you guys are going to the casino you said

Klastow:  Yeah, before they close at midnight.  [It's 10:26 PM]

Gilmurray:  They close at midnight?

Klastow:  But now I am not going to go?-- No?-- Because I'm not going to race down there.

Gilmurray:  OK, so go ahead you're just stopped for five minutes so either way you weren't going to go.

Klastow:  No, we were still going so even now we'll be there by eleven.

Gilmurray:  OK, alright, so I've been real with you alright.  I've helped you out with a lot of things.  So I'm gonna ask you one question and I need you to be honest with me, OK, because at the end of this, I can help you or this can go south, OK?  Is there anything in the car that I need to know about.

Klastow:  No, there is nothing.

Gilmurray:  Nothing, nothing at all.

Klastow:  Nothing at all.

Gilmurray:  Would you consent to a search?

Klastow:  Sure.

Gilmurray:  You would?  OK, we'll get that going here in a second, alright?

Klastow:  What are you searching for though?

Gilmurray:  So it'll be weapons guns, drugs, anything...

ANALYSIS:  In Rodriguez v US, the US Supreme Court ruled that a traffic stop ends when the objective of the stop had been concluded:

“A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation” – not more — and “authority for the seizure . . . ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are – or reasonably should have been—completed…” Traffic stops have to be reasonably short, and unless there is reasonable suspicion of some other crime, officers can’t use the stop as a subterfuge for extraneous investigation...

Gilmurray has said the stop was for speeding and failure to use a turn signal, both of which wouldn't hold up on a challenge if Gilmurray archived the dash cam footage.  There is no basis to search the vehicle to investigate either supposed infraction.  The '5 minute' stop will last over 15 minutes due to the unlawful search to come.  Gilmurray has offered no articulated reason to suspect that drugs or weapons would be in the car.

Klastow:  I do have a pocket knife in my purse.

Gilmurray:  Well you ain't going to be charged with that.  Protection, right?-- yeah-- OK, that's fine, but there's nothing else in the car that I need to know about?  --no-- That's good, I'll talk with them in a minute.  Who's that... is that Young in the back?

Klastow:  I have no idea.

Gilmurray:  You don't know who he is?

Klastow:  I know his first name.  DeAndre.

Gilmurray:  I think it's DeAndre, I don't know for sure.

Klastow:  He's friends with Janice, not me.

Gilmurray:  OK, alright, and your honestly going to the casino-- yes-- [police backup shows up] so I just want to let you know is you don't think there's anything in the car that might be with Janice or...

Klastow:  No, there's nothing, nothing.--OK?-- not even weed, well, I do have my dab pen.

Gilmurray:  I'm not worried about weed.  OK, I'll get them out here in a minute and talk with them one by one and if you just want to sit back here with my partner, then I'll just get you on your way in a short minute, OK?--yeah--  I appreciate your cooperation.

ANALYSIS:  Consent to a vehicle search has been freely given by the car owner.  As a general rule, if one person who possesses common authority to give consent to jointly controlled premises gives consent, but a second co-occupant is physically present and refuses to give permission to search, a consent search is not justified (Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006)).  Pay close attention to what follows, as neither Masters nor the other passenger (DeAndre) are ever asked for their consent to look through their personal belongings in the vehicle.

Gilmurray:  [goes back to car, then goes to passenger side] OK, Janice want to hop on out for me.

Masters:  Why?  What did I do?

Gilmurray:  You didn't do anything, I want to talk to you back here.

Masters:  Oh, God.

Gilmurray:  I don't know why you are so nervous with me.

ANALYSIS:  As previously noted, an officer may not simply order a driver out of the car for curiosity or for some other impermissible motive.  Gilchrist v. State, 757 So.2d 583 (2000).  As given, Gilmurray's order is unlawful.  Had Gilmurray told Masters he was given consent to search the car, she could have removed her overcoat, purse, and pocketbook, but she leaves it behind to obey the order from a policeman who has taken a keen interest in her life for some reason.

Masters:  I get nervous with cops, I don't... I went to jail for something I didn't do already.

Gilmurray:  You didn't do?  What did you go to jail for?

Masters:  You know what I went to jail for.

Gilmurray:  I thought you meant something recent.

Masters:  Well that is recent to me, I've never been to jail before. [Gilmurray deposited her in jail on July 12 for a felony he and Prosecutor Hand appears to have manufactured (to be seen in pt. 3), only three months prior to this stop-- recent]

Gilmurray:  Come over here.  That was a while ago, I thought you got that all taken care of.-- no-- No? OK, can you come back here for a minute.  OK, so what she did was consent for a search of your car so that's why I am pulling you off, so you stay here.  So is there anything in the car I need to know about?-- no-- there's nothing in the car I need to know about?

Masters:  Not that I'm aware of... It's not my car.

Gilmurray:  OK, so I know, so if I bring a dog out here, it's not going to hit on anything?

Masters:  Unless she has something in there, it's not my car.

Gilmurray:  OK I'm just asking your opinion (cross talk)

Masters:  Not that I'm aware of.

Gilmurray:  Not that you are aware of.  So what I'm going to have you do is I'm just going to bring you over here... you know the guy in the back? -- I do-- I think his name is...

ANALYSIS:  It should be emphasized that if an officer doesn't witness any apparent traffic violation or have any other objective basis for pulling a car over in the first place, any evidence that turns up from a car search will probably be inadmissible in court.  Even when there's a lawful basis for a traffic stop, an officer who issues you a citation can't search you or your car without a basis to suspect that you are armed and dangerous or involved in criminal activity (other than the minor traffic violation).  Neither Klastow or Masters has any prior drug or weapons arrests, nothing has been offered by the officer to suspect any would be found in the car.

Masters:  Tracy [her lawyer] told me to call her if this happens

Gilmurray:  This happens?

Masters:  Yeah, she said to call her.

Gilmurray:  OK, you can call her after this incident, so there's not going to be any phone calls made right now

Masters:  She said call me if you question me and...

Gilmurray:  I'm not questioning you at all, I'm not questioning you one bit, OK?  I'm going to pull, who is it... is his last name Young?-- no-- I've talked with him a couple of times, it's DeAndre right?  What's his last name?

ANALYSIS:  Gilmurray had already asked her multiple questions that could potentially incriminate her had she answered in the affirmative, and yet never gave her any Miranda warnings.  Just to show his disdain for Miranda rights, he orders her not to contact her attorney after she tries to assert that right and tells her he is not asking questions one bit, then asks a few more.  The reason he doesn't want a lawyer involved is obvious, it's an invalid traffic stop and he's in the process of conducting an unlawful search.

Masters:  Winston

Gilmurray:  Winston, OK, that's what it was. [JM is on her cell phone] Alright, if you want to make that call, actually, if you want to make it over here, but do it with my partner beside you.  Does that sound fair?-- yup-- alright [walks to car leaving JM behind]  Hey boss man I'm going to have you step out of the car for a moment, OK?  You got a little ash right there.

Winston:  What'd I do?

Gilmurray:  Nothing, you didn't do anything, [Winston walks out of car unmolested and past Gilmurray] so alright [begins search on driver's side, notifies dispatch of vehicle search, notices car seat in back, to LK] Who's with your little one?-- Devin-- [continues search finds three purses in front] He asks them if there is anything in them, anything in them at all] -- No (yelled from both)-- [he continues search through purses, jackets, mostly off camera, for over three minutes, having never asked consent to do so]  He will finish up after a few minutes, talk a little with Klastow about Masters, who he seems to be strangely focused on.

ANALYSIS:  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal) held in United States v Cantu that an officer’s warrantless search of a passenger's handbags, during a traffic stop, violated the Fourth Amendment rights. Although the driver consented to search of the vehicle, they had neither the actual nor the apparent authority to consent to a search of their passenger’s property. The officer had no authority to search inside the passenger’s closed bags without her consent, which he neither sought nor obtained, and he knew the bags he was searching belonged to her.

Masters' purse, pocketbook, and jacket were illegally searched, violating her civil rights as she never granted consent.  In People v. Mead (2019), the Michigan Supreme Court concluded in a "straightforward application of well-settled Fourth Amendment jurisprudence", that a passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in their backpack and held that the warrantless search of the defendant’s backpack was unreasonable because the driver lacked apparent common authority to consent to the search. 

Most if not all of the violations of LPD written policies noted in the traffic stop in pt. 1 apply here also, but those violations are somewhat compounded here since the traffic stop was not legitimate in this case, so the question is why is Officer Gilmurray specifically targeting upright citizens, voluntarily violating LPD policies without blushing, and violating established case law that protects all of our civil rights from the power and authority of state agents who should be acting within the law?

[AnxiousGuy]

This story is a dumpster fire.  The characters are all shady and the "truth" will never come out.  In my lifetime I have experienced plenty of characters like JM and I am not buying these claims of constantly being a "victim".

Having a teenager, I find it hard to believe that this kid would lie to get his mom in trouble.  Maybe this kid knows his mom and "her friend" are down the wrong path.  Maybe he feels that facing the music might help them or the community as a whole?  I doubt he is going out of his way to harm his mother when she has done no wrong.  Either way it shows a big red flag in parenting.

I am not saying the claims against officer Gilmurray are incorrect.  He is likely looking for the low hanging fruit on the local crime tree, which JM is likely part of, and he knows it.  I have no doubt he is using his past experiences with JM and crafty language to violate her rights because he is power hungry, manipulative, and dishonest.  That behavior takes place in every city in America daily.  

I don't get why this dumpster fire story is worth so much of your time.  I hope your personal experiences with LPD and this officer are not influencing your interpretation of the facts being presented by someone hiding under their status as a "medical professional".   What she does for a living has nothing to do with her character.  It should not be used in this story to convince people she is living a healthy lifestyle or is more credible than anyone else in the story.

Not looking forward to part 3

[XLFD]

I didn't promise you a feelgood story with a happy ending and a hero or two, AG; I pretty much presaged it as a proverbial dumpster fire without a hero or happy ending in plain sight, at best maybe an anti-hero catching a break.  Be advised, I offer her background as someone in the medical field, and a past manager in said field, to show that this is a person who doesn't have a criminal background and is one who can have their career seriously affected by having a bribery charge hanging over her head.  Grant her some pathos.

Part 3 will have some redemption, if not, part 4 will.  Guaranteed.

[Willy]

I don't know any of the actors involved with this story. Not the police or their targets. What I do know is that what took place was disturbing because the local authority side stepped the Constitution. This is not a new development that has recently popped it's ugly head up in Ludington. This has been going on for many years now, from City Hall to law enforcement. If the police suspect that the people in the vehicle were guilty of criminal behavior they should have conducted an investigation in a manner that recognizes citizens Constitutional Rights. If this is the way things are done then anyone can be the target of their devious methods. Remember, the Constitution exists to protect our rights and freedoms against tyrants who have been granted authority over the citizens. What X has done in revealing the behavior exhibited by the police is what every person should be worried about since this type of harassment can easily be applied to anyone that authority considers a "problem". If I have learned anything from this forum over the years it is that X backs up his articles with facts and research. Something that is sorely lacking from local authorities as well as the LDN. X is the messenger not the problem. I'm definitely looking forward to part 3. Consider what this article is about. "Your Constitutional Rights"

[Freedom Seeker]

I appreciate your comment and clarity, Willy. And thanks to X for bring this to light ...