28
2011
Officers receive disciplinary notice after texts’ release
An article by Michael Shelton
Two West Bloomfield Township police officers who exchanged text messages after handling a traffic stop involving township Supervisor Michele Economou Ureste and her husband, Matthew Ureste, have received a disciplinary notice due to the nature of the exchange, according to Police Chief Michael Patton.
“The inappropriateness in the messages is apparent and we take corrective internal measures, and that has been done in this case,” Patton said.
The messages were exchanged between Officer Robert Stephens and another officer listed as Z. Dailey after Stephens pulled over Matthew Ureste in the early morning hours of Aug. 13 after allegedly seeing his car roll through a blinking red light traffic signal.
After giving Matthew Ureste a preliminary breath test (PBT), Stephens allegedly told Matthew Ureste he was too intoxicated to drive home and then offered him and Economou Ureste a ride back to their residence.
Dailey arrived on the scene as backup for Stephens.
Shortly after dropping the Urestes off, Stephens began exchanging messages with Dailey. According to Patton, the messages were typed on mobile data computers inside the police officers’ patrol vehicles.
“They receive dispatch information, they type reports on them, receive broadcasts from other agencies, look at the (Michigan) Secretary of State database, and text message from car-to-car or car-to-station,” Patton said of officers typical use of the onboard computers.
Some of the messages included Dailey texting to Stephens derogatory references to Economou Ureste, including “Lol, that (expletive),” “Wait, didn’t that (expletive) want you fired or re-trained when you were brand new?” and “Lol, just makes me want to punch her. Just saying.”
Stephens also texted “(Expletive) me,” and “I’m a little mad at myself for not hooking (arresting) him (Matthew Ureste).”
Patton said that township’s overall communication policy is that any use of a township device should be professional, gentlemanly, business-related and not disparaging to anyone.
“There should be no profanity. They are subject to (the Freedom of Information Act) and officers know that. You would think they would be a professional,” Patton said.
About the Author: Michael Shelton
Michael has been a reporter with the Spinal Column Newsweekly since April 2008 and covers Milford, West Bloomfield, Waterford Schools and West Bloomfield Schools in addition to high school sports.
5 Comments + Add Comment
Leave a comment
SCN E-Edition
Oakland Homes E-Edition
Tipoff Weekly
West Oakland Women’s Section
Sections
Sign up for our E-Edition
Loading...
Bottom line….. Sorry folks…. Poltician or not… You are subject to the same laws as the rest of us, should of been arrested, should of been tossed into the city / county lock up and the texts over the LEIN / Police network while the exact same as the rest of us would of texted / sent, are available under FOIA, but in NO WAY should be used in favor of the “defendants” in this DUI case. While the chief can be commended for releasing them, the cops in question should know better than to of voiced their discontent of politicians and their “greater than the rest of us attitudes” over a publicly available message system……… Next time………….. Do like they use to do in the days of the “BIG 4″ in Detroit when we were growing up. Pulle them over, see they are jerks or being ego jerks, call in the big 4, take them someplace quiet, BEAT THE SNOT OUT OF THEM, and then send them on their way………….. LOL !!!
Plenty has been said about the supervisor’s relative, how about writing about the clerk’s relative for a change. Was that Shaughnessy’s stepdaughter that had the intanglement with West Bloomfield police? Was there a problem with assaulting a police officer?
Funny how that engagement never made the gossip rounds to be leaked to the press.
FOIA requests did not happen? Surprised?
Guess you don’t need to FOIA since there are court records down at the county.
I am sitting by my phone and waiting for a robocall that will explain everything.
Wow, nina/bob, the Supervisor’s pathetic attempts to turn the conversation from drunk driving and non-prosecution continue.
A drunk husband behind the wheel could kill someone. Mouthy teenagers, while annoying, are generally not lethal.
Letting drunk drivers off with a free ride home is not the way to stop drunk drivers from killing people. It violated department policy.
The cops involved did the honorable thing – they owned up, took responsibility, and suffered the consequences.
The Urestes have not.
Whoever the whistle-blower was, they deserve a pat on the back – public scrutiny is the best way to put an end to corrupt practices.
Cathy, does the following look familar? If this is your stepdaughter’s record, please explain why lawyers with DUI specialties were hired?
From looking at the dates, no need to explain why she couldn’t be present at your swearing in ceremony.
07/09/2001 CHS 750.479A-B PEACE OFF/RES ARR, INJ INFL
07/09/2001 SENTENCED – CONVICTED BY PLEA NC
07/09/2001 SERVE 90 DAYS JAIL, BEGIN 07/09/01 CREDIT FOR 37 DAYS.
07/09/2001 CHS 750.81 ASS’LT & BATT
07/09/2001 SENTENCED – CONVICTED BY PLEA NC
07/09/2001 SERVE 90 DAYS JAIL, BEGIN 07/09/01 CREDIT FOR 37 DAYS.
07/09/2001 PAY: COSTS: $300.00
SUP: $360.00 AT $20.00 A MONTH
PLACED ON PROBATION FOR
18 MONTHS
11/01/2004 *** AMENDED ***
11/01/2004 FOUND GUILTY ON: 10/18/04
11/01/2004 OAKLAND COUNTY JAIL
11/01/2004 VOP VIOLATION OF PROBATION AS TO:
11/01/2004 CHS 750.479A-B PEACE OFF/RES ARR, INJ INFL
11/01/2004 SENTENCED – CONVICTED BY PLEA G
11/01/2004 SERVE 52 DAYS JAIL, BEGIN 11/01/04 CREDIT FOR 52 DAYS.
11/01/2004 CHS 750.81 ASS’LT & BATT
11/01/2004 SENTENCED – CONVICTED BY PLEA NC
11/01/2004 OTHER: PROBATION IS HEREBYTERMIN