When an LPD Crash Scene Investigation of Their Own Crash Crashes

[XLFD]

At 5:48 PM on March 3rd, one of our members at the Ludington Pitchfork posted a picture of a two-vehicle accident at an intersection that happened in Ludington within the hour. 

Such a routine-looking accident wouldn't normally register on our consciousness, but for the fact that one of the vehicles was one of the new black Durangos that the Ludington Police Department (LPD) are making their mainstay transportation mode; it was being driven by an on-duty officer.  None of our readers could give us an eyewitness account, nor would the incident be noted in the LPD's usually-active social media page or other online local media sources over the course of the next day.  This would pique our interest enough to send a FOIA request for the incident report and other crash scene investigations.  The body of our request:

 On the afternoon of March 3rd, a two-vehicle accident involving a car and a police vehicle happened near Floracraft (see this link for a picture: Facebook ).  Please provide the police report associated with the accident, the UD-10 for the accident, any crash scene investigation documentation, and any pictures of the accident scene.  Please also provide the vehicle's dash cam footage for the minute prior to the crash, if it was running and exists.  If this was investigated by another police agency, please supply their report given to the LPD, or let me know what agency was that and any incident number if known. 

The response came with four attachments the first indicated that the request was granted and only the usual privacy exemption for personal information on the report was claimed.  The second was a redacted citation, showing that the driver, Brian Darrell Davis, of the other vehicle, a 2019 Kia, was charged with a civil infraction for violating MCL 257.649(4).  This presented the first problem I noticed with the records I received.  Subsection 4 of that law refers to only an intersection controlled by a traffic signal.  When one looks at the original picture and the intersection of Longfellow and Lavinia Streets, only a yield sign for east-west traffic on Longfellow is seen.

           Intersection where accident occurred.  Red line on Longfellow showing Davis' path, black line showing LPD's path

Subsection 6 is the appropriate right-of-way rules for a yield sign.  Had Davis disputed this citation (which he didn't, court records show he paid $100 the next day to satisfy the citation), he could show his innocence easily enough by showing that the intersection was not controlled by a traffic signal.  Rookie Officer Braden Kronlein made a rookie mistake in citing the wrong subsection.  LPD administrators made a bigger mistake by not letting the sheriff or state police investigate the accident, so that their own investigation by a rookie would not come into question under fairness or completeness.

The third attachment was the UD-10, a report made to the Michigan State Police following every traffic accident by the responding police agency.  It notes that the accident was due to Davis failing to yield, but beyond that it offers a diagram of what appears to have happened:

The UD-10, crafted by Kronlein and reviewed by LPD Captain Haveman indicates the crash was fully the fault of Davis and not LPD Officer Travis Haner, with the additional note that Kronlein reviewed the dash cam footage of Haner's vehicle to successfully verify the ongoing narrative, which is described more in the fourth attachment, the incident report.  This doesn't offer much more than the UD-10 did, reciting the narrative of the crash as Davis' fault for ignoring the yield sign.  This was reviewed additionally by Sergeant Michael Gilmurray without any problem noted.  

This was all that was received, other than a transmission from the FOIA Coordinator to the LPD asking for all of the stuff I asked for, which as saw before, asked for accident scene pictures and dashcam footage of the LPD vehicle.  No pictures were taken apparently, and even though Kronlein indicates that he checked the dash cam footage on both the UD-10 and the incident report, footage was not provided in the response.  These omissions raise two large red flags.  

The original photo and the UD-10 indicate that the LPD Durango was not drivable and needed to be towed away, likely needing several thousand dollars of repair to the vehicle body and other functions, if not replacement.  Either way, this costs the taxpayers a lot of money; so why are zero pictures taken of the accident scene to document damage done to public property, presumably due to the fault of Davis? 

What if the photos called into question the LPD's narrative, should Davis deny responsibility for the minor infraction?  Surely the dashcam footage would dispel that, but for some reason, the LPD didn't retain that record.  Why would they destroy that record, or worse, not disclose that properly to a FOIA request asking directly for it?  

There's a good reason why they might destroy such a record or not give it out.  When you're dealing with an agency that has not been acting transparently or in accordance with the law over the last three years, that reason becomes more likely to be the case.  Dash cam footage shows what is happening in front of the police vehicle, but it also shows what the speed of that vehicle is as it travels down the street.

This is important, as the law that governs general right-of-way rules, the already mentioned MCL 257.649, at subsection seven is very important:

We have noted that Officer Kronlein made a rookie mistake for citing the wrong infraction and by not taking photos of the accident scene that he was given charge of, or any other investigation other than looking at dashcam footage that the LPD has either destroyed or failed to release.  We also see the LPD neglecting the usual policy of another police agency investigating an accident involving a LPD vehicle.  We now see Kronlein, having had his reports reviewed by a captain and sergeant of the LPD, completely ignore a necessary part of the investigation.  Was Officer Haner speeding when the crash happened?  If he was, the law says he forfeited any right-of-way that he had otherwise.

This section of Lavinia Street, shown above is straight, wide and recently repaved.  It also has not only a speed limit of 25 mph, but also a sign in the block before the Longfellow intersection that warns one to go slow because of children in the area (in recognition of the family apartment complex to the east and the nearby athletic fields).  Officer Haner's speed at the time of this crash was very important as to who caused this crash, and if he was speeding, that should have been included in the UD-10.  Even if Davis was fiddling with his radio and failed to yield, he would not have violated the ROW law he was charged with had Officer Haner been traveling 26 mph or higher. 

It would have been Officer Haner's fault for speeding and since the LPD is acting guilty by not allowing other agencies to do a real investigation of the accident, not taking any pictures, and especially hiding/destroying the dash cam footage.  We need to ask them just why they are acting that way when an expensive piece of equipment that we paid for was damaged or destroyed.