DETROIT — A former officer with the Detroit Police Department received a staggering award of over $58 million on Tuesday from a federal jury, following a civil trial that centered around violations of his constitutional rights by a Michigan State Police lieutenant during a flawed criminal investigation.
The case traces back to 2019, when allegations surfaced regarding the sexual assault of a minor. These accusations were intensified by an assistant attorney general who later faced his own legal troubles, including charges of misconduct and subsequent disbarment. The jury verdict brought a sense of closure for Sean MacMaster, who had endured what he described as a harrowing nine-year ordeal. Overcome with emotion, MacMaster broke down upon learning the jury’s decision after a trial that spanned nearly three weeks in front of U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy in Detroit.
MacMaster’s legal battle stemmed from claims involving Michigan State Police Lt. David Busacca, who faced accusations of altering police reports and failing to include critical information in warrant applications. This misconduct ultimately resulted in search and arrest warrants being issued without the necessary probable cause. MacMaster’s attorney, Josh Blanchard, emphasized accountability, stating, “When you abuse your power, you get held responsible.”
The jury awarded MacMaster a total of $33.4 million for lost wages, suffering, damage to reputation, and legal fees, along with an additional $25 million in punitive damages. It remains unclear whether an appeal will follow. High-stakes verdicts in federal court are not uncommon in Detroit; however, significant reductions of such awards do occur, as evidenced by previous cases.
Michigan State Police and the Michigan Attorney General’s Office did not provide immediate comments on the verdict. As of January, Busacca had been positioned as a post commander within the state police.
State Rep. Jay DeBoyer, who serves as the head of the House Oversight Committee, stated he was unfamiliar with the details of this case but indicated that his committee had recently turned its focus on examining the Michigan State Police’s actions. He expressed intentions to delve into the circumstances that led to such significant liability.
The exact financial responsibility of the state regarding the jury’s ruling is still uncertain, particularly given Busacca’s employment at the time and the involvement of former Assistant Attorney General Brian Kolodziej. McCabe, a former Oakland County Undersheriff, shared his testimony during the trial about the initial investigation that cleared MacMaster and his stepfather, remarking that the subsequent actions taken against them represented a significant miscarriage of justice.
This ruling reaffirmed Judge Murphy’s earlier decision in January, which noted ample evidence allowing the jury to proceed with claims that Busacca had manipulated police documentation and acted with malicious intent against MacMaster. Furthermore, the judge allowed for additional allegations related to Kolodziej and MacMaster’s ex-wife, Johanna MacMaster, to advance during the trial.
The events that unfolded began in 2019 when MacMaster and his stepfather were charged with serious crimes based on an investigation led by Busacca and Kolodziej. However, by late 2019, Michigan’s Attorney General Dana Nessel dismissed the charges after revelations of Kolodziej’s inappropriate conduct came to light.
MacMaster’s lawsuit, initiated in 2021, alleged that he was wrongfully targeted due to a conspiracy involving investigators and Kolodziej to pursue unfounded charges against him. He claimed these actions violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, arguing that warrants sworn by Busacca lacked sufficient evidence.
The legal situation surrounding this case continues to evolve, with MacMaster already having settled claims with his ex-wife prior to the trial. As the implications of the verdict resonate, the Michigan legal community and law enforcement agencies are likely to re-evaluate their practices and accountability mechanisms.
This article was automatically written by Open AI and may contain inaccuracies regarding the people, facts, and circumstances. Requests to remove, retract, or correct the article can be directed via email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.