Oxford Village Councilman Erik Dolan is the target of a federal lawsuit that accuses him, in his capacity as an officer with the Oak Park Department of Public Safety, of violating the constitutional rights of a 24-year-old African American man, assaulting him and wrongful arrest.

Dominique Peter McCray, of Southfield, is the plaintiff in the 32-page civil suit filed June 1 in U.S. District Court.

In addition to Dolan, a white officer who has worked for Oak Park since 1996 and served on Oxford’s council since April 2016, the suit also names the City of Oak Park and its public safety department as defendants.

The suit contains 16 counts including violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and assault and battery.

John N. Elliot, the Bloomfield Hills attorney representing McCray, said his client wants things to change in Oak Park and he’s hoping this suit will make it so the public safety department “can no longer turn a blind eye to this behavior by their officers.”

“He’s hoping that a jury will return an award . . . .that not only will compensate him, but will hopefully deter this (type of) thing from happening in the future,” Elliot said.

“There is discrimination out there. It’s (been) 50 years since the Detroit Riots . . . and I don’t know how much has really changed to be honest, unfortunately,” the attorney noted.

Mike Pinkerton, deputy director of the public safety department, did not return calls seeking comment.

Dolan emailed this reporter the following statement – “Due to the fact that the Oak Park matter involves on-going civil litigation, I am unfortunately prohibited from commenting. As it pertains to the Village of Oxford, I have no intention of changing anything. As a matter of fact, I intend on doubling down on an agenda of significant change and increased efficiency.”

McCray is suing over an incident that took place on May 31, 2016.

According to Elliot, his client and a friend were walking along Oak Park Blvd., on their way to play basketball. His client was “talking to his mother on his cell phone.”

They walked past Dolan, who according to the police report he wrote, was investigating an unrelated home invasion. Dolan was speaking with a witness, a 46-year-old St. Clair Shores man, while walking down a driveway.

According to the report, McCray saw Dolan, “then looked toward the patrol vehicle parked in the street” and “made the decision to loudly state ‘(expletive) the police.’”

Dolan wrote he “only heard McCray shout the word ‘(expletive)’, but (the) witness . . . stated that the subject made the statement ‘(expletive) the police’ as he and (his friend) walked by.”

“Concerned for the peace of the general public,” Dolan wrote he “advised” McCray and his friend “to stop so that this matter could be addressed . . . but both subjects refused.”

When Dolan repeated his command for them to stop and return, the report stated, “McCray responded with ‘I’m not (expletive) coming back there.’”

The statement written by the witness with Dolan confirmed what was in the report.

“As we were walking from the backyard to the front, the 2 men yelled out ‘(expletive) the police’ and as the officer tried to talk (to) them, (they) proceeded to get lippy and kept walking away. The officer asked them several times to stop and come here and they kept walking and (said) I’m not (expletive) coming back,” wrote the St. Clair Shores man.

“In light of the blatant violation of a lawful command, (Dolan) walked toward the two men and again told them to stop. Both subjects began to mutter additional statements of defiance containing the word ‘(expletive,’ but this officer was unable to hear exactly what the statements were,” the report stated.

Dolan wrote that McCray and his friend failed to comply with “4-5 verbal commands” for them to stop. The report stated Dolan drew his Taser “as a precautionary measure and held it at the low-ready position.”

Dolan, according to his report, “felt that McCray’s defiance and his brazen profane comments made to (an) officer and the general public suggested that he might take his aggression to the next level.”

In response to the drawing of the Taser, Dolan wrote that McCray’s friend stopped, but McCray did not. The report stated McCray “remained defiant and continued to walk stating that this officer couldn’t (tase) him because he had a heart condition.”

“This officer suggested that it would therefore be prudent to stop as he had repeatedly been instructed to do,” Dolan wrote in his report. Dolan called for backup.

Upon the arrival of four Oak Park officers, Dolan wrote “both subjects began to comply.” A Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) check showed McCray had “multiple misdemeanor traffic warrants out of 36th Dist. Court” while his friend had an arrest warrant out of Southfield, according to Dolan’s report.

Elliot’s version of events differs from the police report.

According to the June 2 letter that Elliot emailed to the Leader, Dolan started following them and calling out, “Hey bros, stop.”

The two young men “continued walking down the sidewalk as (McCray) continued to talk with his mother,” according to Elliot.

“As the backup arrived, approximately five officers began charging (McCray and his friend),” the attorney wrote. “Officer Dolan drew his taser and pointed it at (McCray), who asked Officer Dolan not to shoot because of his heart condition. Officer Dolan allegedly laughed, making the statement, ‘So, if I shoot you, you will probably die.’ He apparently felt that (McCray’s) condition was funny.”

According to Elliot, Dolan “knocked (McCray) to the ground, handcuffed him and placed him in a squad car.” “Due to the brutality,” the lawsuit states, McCray “was in substantial pain and suffered pain and swelling to his knees and pain in his chest.”

Elliot said McCray was “left in handcuffs for over two hours at the police station.”

“Normally, they get them in there and they unlock the cuffs once they put them in a cell,” the attorney noted.

McCray was charged with disorderly conduct/person as well as resisting and obstructing a police officer.

Both of these misdemeanor charges were dismissed by a 45th District judge on Aug. 24, 2016. According to the judge’s order, the application of the disorderly conduct law to McCray’s speech was “unconstitutional.”

“Because there was no violation of the statute and no crime committed” the resisting and obstructing charge was dismissed as well, the order stated.

“Even if (McCray) had said that, it would have been constitutionally-protected speech,” Elliot said. “What our client has maintained from the beginning is he never said anything, other than talk to his mom on the phone . . . My client, Mr. McCray, does not seem to talk like that. I assume he never said it and he maintains that he never said it . . . Even if had said this, exactly what they’re alleging, it was still not enough for (Dolan) to arrest (McCray), let alone go over and above and use this excessive force.”

“(McCray) has no criminal background, yet he was treated as if he was a hardened criminal and did something horribly wrong,” Elliot wrote in his letter. “If this can happen to Mr. McCray in the middle of the day, then it can happen to anyone. The fact that Oak Park allows this conduct from its officers is something that should not be tolerated.”

Elliot told this reporter McCray attempted to file a criminal complaint against Dolan, but was denied by the public safety department.

“For whatever reason, Oak Park Police said it’s their policy – they would not take a (criminal) complaint against their officer,” the attorney said.

This incident has deeply affected McCray, according to Elliot. “It’s completely changed his life, unfortunately,” the attorney said. “This is a young man who had never been in trouble before. He’s a bright, articulate young man. Polite. (He) had no reason to fear the police . . . Mr. McCray, he’s fearful now. He’s fearful of being around the police now. He looks at them differently. It’s definitely changed him and (this) probably, will stay with him, realistically, for the rest of his life.”

Elliot found it “ironic” and “shocking” that Dolan arrested McCray for uttering an expletive, when he allegedly said the same expletive to an Oxford Village police officer on May 25, 2016, just six days earlier.

The incident was documented in a report filed by Oxford Village Police Officer Sean Brown.

According to the report, Brown was conducting traffic enforcement on Spring Lake Dr. in the Oxford Lakes subdivision, where Dolan lives. As he was driving down the street, Brown reported he heard someone yell, “what the (expletive).” When the officer stopped, he reported hearing this phrase again and seeing a man walking towards his patrol car.

Brown realized it was Dolan and explained to him that he was in the area “watching the stop sign” at Oxford Lakes Dr. and Woodleigh Way by sitting on Spring Lake Dr., the report stated.

Dolan, according to the report, made a few remarks referencing Police Chief Mike Neymanowski and village Manager Joe Young, both of whom are now no longer in Oxford’s employ, then walked away.

At the time, Dolan believed village police were purposely driving past his house because he was a proponent of closing the department’s dispatch center and contracting with the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office.

Dolan’s belief that village police were targeting him and his family led to his alleged misuse of LEIN. Documentation of this was included in the lawsuit.

According to a May 18, 2016 letter from Dawn Brinningstaull, of the Michigan State Police Criminal Justice Information Center, to Steve Cooper, director of the Oak Park Department of Public Safety, Dolan accessed LEIN on two occasions – Feb. 4, 2016 and May 7, 2016.

“Officer Dolan expressed (to the state police) concern that members of another law enforcement agency in the community where he resides and serves on the governing council, may have used LEIN to query himself, family members, and associated vehicles in retaliation,” Brinningstaull wrote. “In his request for investigation into the allegations, Officer Dolan stated he had queried his own vehicle registration plate to determine if connections to the vehicle file of the Department of State were working.”

In her letter, Brinningstaull noted, “Officers and civilian staff who access license plate or driver license records for personal use can be prosecuted for a felony under the Driver Privacy Protection Act, MCL 257.903. This offense would be in addition to any LEIN violation.”

Dolan was interviewed about his alleged misuse of LEIN by an Oak Park sergeant on June 8, 2016. A summary of that interview was included as an exhibit with the lawsuit.

During the interview, Dolan explained “he felt that Oxford PD had queried his information and license because they were upset that as a member of the council he wants to transfer dispatch duties to Oakland County.”

That’s why he contacted the state police.

“Ofc. Dolan also stated that he witnessed Oxford PD drive by his home several times very slow. Ofc. Dolan stated his daughter also noticed Oxford PD driving by his residence. Ofc. Dolan stated that a union member from Oxford PD had called another officer (from the Oak Park) department in an attempt to get information on him,” the interview summary stated.

Dolan admitted “he queried his own (license) plate,” but noted in the interview, “he did not realize that it was a violation” to do this.

Oak Park’s investigation determined Dolan “committed an act of misconduct” and the recommended action was “counseling.”

In an Aug. 18, 2016 follow-up letter, Brinningstaull stated her finding that Dolan had “violated LEIN policy, by using LEIN for personal reasons,” but she deemed the “corrective action” taken by Oak Park “to be sufficient.”

Also included with the lawsuit as exhibits are records from the Oak Park Public Safety Department that show Dolan received four citizen complaints regarding his conduct in the field between 2014 and 2016. All four were investigated by the department.

Two were found to be “inconclusive – the allegations could not be clearly proven nor disproved” and there was “no basis for action.”

With regard to the other two complaints, it was determined Dolan “committed an act of misconduct” and the recommended action was that he receive “counseling.”