|
No. 131103
| Iskandar Manuel, Maggie Manuel, Jimmy Manuel, |
|
Kevin L. McAllister |
| Joseph Manuel, Imad Manuel, and Adel Manuel, |
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellees, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Ingham - Manderfield, P.) |
|
|
| Timothy J. Gill, County of Clinton, County of |
|
Patrick A. Aseltyne |
| Eaton, Rusty Banehoff, County of Ingham, Eaton |
|
John R. McGlinchey |
| County Sheriff, Clinton County Sheriff, Kenneth |
|
|
| Knowlton, Lansing Chief of Police, City of Lansing, |
|
|
| Lansing Police Commission, Jimmy Patrick, and |
|
|
| Ingham County Sheriff, |
|
|
Defendants-Appellees |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Tri-County Metro Narcotics Squad, |
|
Ann M. Sherman |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellees' Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendants-Appellees' County of Eaton and Eaton County Sheriff's Concurrence Brief>>
Defendants-Appellees' Ingham County's Concurrence Brief>>
Background
The Tri-County Metro Narcotics Squad is a task force, composed of various law enforcement agencies, that was created to enforce narcotics and controlled substances laws in Michigan. Each participating police agency assigns officers to the squad, which operates under the Michigan State Police’s direction. In 1999, Iskandar Manuel, who with his family owned a car dealership in Lansing, agreed to assist with an undercover investigation after squad members assured him that his identity would not be disclosed and that the squad would reimburse him for any expenses or losses that the family business incurred. Manuel thereafter advised the squad of planned drive-by shootings, drug deals, and other criminal activities. In addition to putting surveillance equipment in the Manuels’ residence and business, the squad attached tracking devices to cars that the dealership sold to suspected drug dealers. One squad officer allegedly disclosed the Manuels’ cooperation to targets of the investigation; the Manuels claim that they received threats as a result. The Manuels sued the squad and other defendants in circuit court. In part, they claimed – based on the squad’s alleged representations that the Manuels would be reimbursed for expenses and business losses – that the squad had breached an express or implied contract. But the circuit court granted the squad’s motion for summary disposition and dismissed the breach of contract claim. Although the squad was an entity that could be sued, the Manuels pleaded their claim “in the most conclusory” terms and no writing existed establishing the terms of the alleged contract, the court said. The contract claim must be dismissed, the trial court said, since the statute of frauds – a legal doctrine that requires that certain types of contracts be in writing – barred any oral agreement. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court judge that the squad is a “juridical entity capable of being sued.” But the squad is “equivalent to a State agency” because the State Police directed and supervised the squad, the Court of Appeals determined. Accordingly, the squad could only be sued in the Court of Claims, the appellate panel said. The squad appeals.
Top of Page
|
