Another Side of Cole 'sLaw

[XLFD]

In the first segment of this look at an incident four years back which shown a side of Sheriff candidate Kim Cole that has rarely been seen, we had the court documents that a Martin Schilling filed alleging 3-5 violations of the Fourth Amendment by Sergeant Cole on February 25, 2008   Cole 'sLaw

                Cole 'sLaw Lovers: Former MCS Englebrecht, Hartrum, Stewart, and Sgt. Cole 

With a subsequent FOIA to the Mason County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) we have gotten back the other side of this case:  the police reports, interviews with Martin (and Kyle) Schilling, and a variety of other records.  Let's start with the police report filed by Kim Cole as to his version of what happened that early morning, then early afternoon.

Many may look at the first stop, and say that Sgt. Cole did not do anything wrong.  That is in itself incorrect, as he used his powers as a police officer to stop Martin Schilling going about in his car, without having any probable cause to do so.  Sgt. Cole says:  "I then stopped his vehicle on Campbell Rd....", he then asks Martin where his son was and many other questions/comments about what was going on with his son-- but never told Martin the reason why he stopped him, which seems to have been just to interrogate him.  Martin Schilling was well within his rights to just answer every question with "Am I free to go?" "I'm going to remain silent."  By Sgt. Cole's own narrative, he stopped the vehicle without reasonable suspicion that Martin had, or was going to, commit a crime, or that he had violated any traffic law.

But police officers are entitled to one mulligan occasionally; unfortunately, the second encounter was even more violative of Martin's rights.  The bottom of the above explains that Sgt. Cole once again stopped Martin's vehicle via a traffic stop.  Using that terminology gets him in some trouble, for once again, Martin had made no violation of traffic laws; if Sgt. Cole had said he stopped the vehicle because he thought a fugitive was inside, that would be likely seen as a legit cause in court.  Page 2:

This is where Kim Cole's actions go beyond the pale.  Martin is stopped and told to show Kim his hands.  He complies.  He is told to put his hands on the 'hood' of the vehicle.  He complies, correcting the officer's verbal flub.  Martin has done nothing against the law, nor is there cause that he may.  Cole's narrative:   "He looked at me and with an arrogant tone stated "that's not a hood, it's a roof.  I then secured him by handcuffing him, hands behind his back, with the cuffs double locked and contacted the detective bureau.  I was told to bring him in for an interview."

If you are OK with police tactics like this, then vote for Cole.  If you are appalled at a man being stopped twice unlawfully, then humiliated by getting handcuffed and taken in for questioning for no reason-- if you, like Sheriff Fiers, cannot defend these police actions-- then I suggest you work hard to stop Cole from getting elected to a position where he will endorse his officers doing such actions.

For he has never publicly acknowledged that he has done anything wrong; quite the opposite, in this letter from his old boss Laud Hartrum, his actions were... "lauded".

Kim Cole indicated that he would be filing suit against Martin Schilling???  For what, correcting his car part gaffe?  Is this the type of temperament we want as Sheriff of Mason County?

Here's another thing that bothers me in this case.  This document here says that Kyle Schilling was arrested at 1300 on Feb. 25., and yet This record  says they didn't start interviewing Martin until 1330, a half hour after Kyle was in custody.  They don't apprise Martin of that fact.   Detective Kenney then has a long talk with Martin, 41 pages of transcribed interview, here's page one , page seventeen where they discuss the first stop, with Det. Kenney saying it's a lot safer environment on a traffic stop than it is coming to your house (?!), page thirty-four where Martin asks whether he will be cuffed again when he's taken back to his vehicle, and Kenney joking 'not unless you want to be'.  I think I would not have found that very funny at that point.

Lastly, I think this truly shows how bad the Mason County Sheriff's Office was back in 2008  under Laud Hartrum.  Supplementing his October letter above, this warrant request shows they tried to get Martin Schilling arrested for Harboring/Concealing a fugitive for his actions on 2-25-2008.

Note the date is loosely penned in "Tot Pros 4-16-08" making one think they got it to the Prosecutor on April 16.  But the reply by the Prosecutor Susan Kasley Sniegowski is dated 7-1-2008 and has the MCSO 'received' date of 7-2-2008.  Telling why  MCL 750.199(3)(a&b) does not apply:

The media releases by the MCSO at the time of the settlement said:  " He was released about an hour and a half later. Law enforcement officers requested a warrant for Schilling to be charged with a crime not specified in the filing. The Mason County Prosecutor’s Office denied that request."   One would think the warrant was requested and denied while they had retained Martin Schilling, reading this.  Over four months later that request was denied.  Four months after the fact.

What precipitated that warrant being issued?  Maybe it was Martin's filling of a lawsuit in May of 2008 (in that four month period) about false arrest and illegal search and seizure.

It has one ask the questions.  Why did the MCSO not request a warrant, put it before the Prosecutor, until after they were served with a lawsuit that declares there were unlawful detainments, seizures, and arrests?  How could the MCSO justify the Harboring a fugitive charge in the above manner when there was no such harboring or concealment?  And how, in October, can both Sheriff Hartrum, and Sergeant Cole trumpet that Cole will sue a man that did nothing wrong other than stand up for his rights and sue the County a half year previous?

And Sergeant Cole, how's that countersuit working out for you?  I only see here a Sheriff's Office drowning in its own corruption, and lacking any sort of consideration for the rights of a Mason County Citizen, innocent of doing anything wrong in this situation involving his son.  If you want the MCSO to operate this way, then by all means vote for Kim Cole.  If you want someone who actually respects the Constitution, never defended the MCSO's actions in this sordid affair, and considers himself a servant to the public (not vice versa), then vote for Jeff Fiers. 

[Brian Carlson]

Sgt. Cole was briefed by Sgt. Hartley about a possible meeting between Schilling and his son. Later on after the two stops of Schilling's vehicle Sgt. Cole made the following entry in  his report, which was not disputed.

"

Mr. Schilling told me he was trying to get his son to turn himself in, but he would not. I asked Mr. Schilling “did I not tell you of the warrants for your son.” He stated, at first, “I haven’t seen him.” I told him this was not true, because he was just seen in his car by undercover officers. He then stated, I was trying to get  him to turn himself in."

[Brian Carlson]

Sgt. Hartley and Sgt. Cole had knowledge of Schilling meeting his son. We do not know where or what the details are, but it turned out to be correct that Schilling was meeting with his son. I would think that charges could have be brought against Schilling for lying to law enforcement about the location of a person wanted on a felony warrant.

[Marty Redman]

Im sure you like defending your candidate Brian, but if a cop stops me while Im driving my car he better have a damn good reason to.  If he slaps cuffs on me he better have an even better reason to. 

[Brian Carlson]

I'm in Arizona Marty. You would never survive here with Sheriff Joe Arpio. Joe stops anyone he wants to, and he's been doing it for over 25 years.

[Brian Carlson]

I'd love to stay and chat, but I'm going to lunch with Sheriff Joe at Chick-fil-A

[Cokeguy]

Johanna , If SGT. Cole indeed did violate Mr. Schillings rights why did Mr. schilling "settle" for 7500.00 ? when he could have been awarded up to 250,000.00 because he didn't have a leg to stand on and his counsel advised him $7500.00 was better then nothing. the end. Mr Schilling would have gone for the "gold" if he could have gotten it.The county settled on 7500.00 because it was cheaper then going through all the nonsense of a trial just to prove Cole did no wrong.My first meeting with Sgt. Cole was an accident I was in and Sgt. Cole treated me with respect and fairness and has always been helpful when ever I have spoken to him . I am not trying to sway your vote. All I am saying is I respect Sgt. Cole and all the officers out their doing there jobs and putting their lives on the line . You will never know what you would do or how you would handle a situation until your faced with it. Sure its easy to sit at a keyboard and point fingers , but what if you were the one wearing the badge ( essentially a target ) and having to deal with a situation that could possibly be life or death? not once or twice but hundreds of times a week . think about it . If Mr. Schillings son was wanted for questioning with an attempt on another officer and you had to stop the car with a father and son . Mr cole is a father himself and I am sure there is nothing he wouldn't do for his son as most dads feel. So knowing all that how would you deal with the situation? I don't think its fair to judge his actions from what one hears or reads.

[Cokeguy]

Schilling WOULD NOT HAVE SETTLED IF HE WAS RIGHT , JUST SAYIN.

[Brian Carlson]

In a civil case there is no shadow of a doubt just a preponderance of the evidence. This makes a civil case easier to win. OJ is an example of this. Schilling and his lawyer failed to prove any of the points mentioned and he was asking $50,000 each.

[XLFD]

Brian Carlson:  " Schilling and his lawyer failed to prove any of the points mentioned and he was asking $50,000 each" 

There was never a trial, it was settled out of court.  Why don't you add:  "Cole and his County-appointed lawyers failed to disprove any of the points mentioned, and they paid $7500."

Does that sound about right also?

[Brian Carlson]

 I have never met Sheriff Fier and I may have met Kim Cole when he was about 10 years old. I am not a voter in Mason County because I have lived in Arizona for the past 10 years. I did not come into this discussion with any preconceived agendas. My knowledge of this incident comes from what I've read on this web site. The civil case against Cole failed to prove that Cole violated Schilling's rights, as it was settled out of court. As I see it, Cole was a good cop who received information from Sgt. Hartley when he came on duty. He followed up on that information, and he correctly did find that the Schilling's were meeting up. The felony warrant was for the son, but the father knew where the son was. It seems to me that there was probable cause for the stops of the father's car because he knew the location of his son. I do not know the Schilling's and have not lived in Ludington for over30 years, so I am not trying to sway things one way or another. I'm just telling it like I see it.

[XLFD]

Brian, in your characterization of him, Sheriff Arpaio would be very proud of your position.  You still are not addressing the false arrest charge; why didn't Sgt. Cole  tell him why he was being handcuffed, arrested, and tooken in for questioning?   Doesn't sound like he has that "articulating" skill he says that leaders need, does it? 

[Brian Carlson]

In the first stop Cole informed Schilling that he was looking for his son who had felony warrants on him. Detectives saw Schilling meet with his son. Schillling lied about knowing the location of his son, but changed his story when he found out the detectives had seen them together. Schilling knew why he was being arrested.