People Involved
Incident Overview
On November 6, 2022, Marc King of the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Office was arrested for Operating While Intoxicated (OWI). The arrest itself was handled properly by an outside agency. What happened afterward is the focus of this documentation.
The Core Problem
Marc King is the brother of Mat King , the elected Sheriff of St. Clair County. When a deputy is arrested for a crime, standard practice calls for an independent investigation, typically by an external agency, to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
That did not happen here.
Key Figures
Mat King Sheriff Marc King Deputy Sheriff Matthew Pohl Captain Damon Duva Deputy Sheriff
Sequence of Events
November 6, 2022
- Marc King arrested for OWI
- Transported to Lapeer County Jail
- Mat King notified the same day
- Sheriff contacts Matthew Pohl
- Sheriff contacts Jim Spadafore
- Command-level discussions begin
Post-Arrest Handling
- No recusal: Mat King did not recuse himself
- No external agency: Investigation handled internally
- Personal relationships: Close friends of the arrestee involved
- Informal communications: Off-the-record discussions occurred
2022-2024
- Text messages deleted by Matthew Pohl
- Text messages deleted/lost by Damon Duva
- No litigation hold established
- No evidence retention protocols followed
Governance Failures
1. Conflict of Interest - Unmitigated
The Sheriff of the county was the brother of the arrested deputy. Despite this obvious conflict:
- No written policy required recusal
- No recusal occurred
- The Sheriff maintained direct involvement
2. No Independent Oversight
When an officer is accused of misconduct, independent investigation is essential:
- No external agency was engaged
- No independent investigator was assigned
- All handling remained within the department
3. Evidence Spoliation
Multiple officers destroyed relevant communications:
| Officer | Relationship | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Matthew Pohl | Close Friend | Deleted texts |
| Damon Duva | Close Friend | Deleted texts |
4. No Preservation Protocols
Despite foreseeable litigation:
- No litigation hold was established
- No document preservation occurred
- Personal devices used without retention requirements
Legal Exposure
Michigan Law
- MCL 750.491 : Evidence tampering
- FOIA violations: Destruction of public records
Federal Law
- 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 : Civil rights implications
- Spoliation doctrine: Adverse inference in litigation
Why This Matters
This case is about what happens when the law applies to the Sheriff’s own family. Instead of stepping back, leadership stepped in.
Key Testimony
AHe deliberately withheld information from myself and admitted so.
AWhatever text messages or phone calls that I’d referenced in my internal report, I no longer have those on my phone.
AHave you deleted call logs or text messages reflecting communications between yourself and the sheriff in November of 2022? I’m sure I have, yes.
The integrity of law enforcement depends on public trust. When an officer is arrested:
- The public needs to know the investigation was fair
- Close relationships should disqualify participants
- Evidence must be preserved
- Independent oversight is essential
In St. Clair County, none of these safeguards worked.
What Residents Should Know
The issue is not the arrest. Deputies, like all people, can make mistakes.
The issue is the response:
- No independent investigation
- Sheriff investigated his own brother
- Evidence disappeared
- No accountability mechanisms activated
Recommended Actions
Based on the evidence documented here, appropriate responses include:
- DOJ Civil Rights Division referral
- Michigan Attorney General Public Integrity investigation
- County oversight structural reforms
- Policy changes requiring:
- Mandatory recusal for family conflicts
- External investigation of officer misconduct
- Evidence retention and litigation hold procedures
- Independent oversight mechanisms
Available Evidence
- Sheriff Mat King Deposition
- Captain Matthew Pohl Deposition
- Deputy Duva Transcripts
- Documentation packages with detailed analysis
Timeline of Events
16 documented events showing what should have happened vs. what actually happened
Should Have Happened
- Department should have a clear retention policy for electronic communications
- Communications about department matters should be preserved
- Litigation hold notices should have been issued when conflict became apparent
- Officers should not delete communications referenced in official reports
What Actually Happened
- No retention policy existed for text messages or phone calls
- Captain Pohl admitted deleting texts referenced in his internal report
- Deputy Duva confirmed deleting texts about the arrest
- No litigation hold was ever implemented; evidence is now unavailable
Should Have Happened
- Sheriff should have immediately recused himself upon learning of brother's arrest
- An independent external agency should have been engaged to investigate
- All communications should have been documented and preserved
- Officers without personal relationships should have handled post-arrest procedures
What Actually Happened
- Sheriff Mat King did not recuse himself from any aspect of the matter
- No external agency was engaged; matter handled entirely internally
- Text messages were deleted by multiple parties
- Close friends of arrestee were directly involved in handling the incident
Should Have Happened
- Sheriff should have immediately recused himself upon notification
- External agency should have been contacted to handle the investigation
- All communications should have been documented and preserved
- Clear chain of custody should have been established
What Actually Happened
- No recusal occurred; Sheriff remained involved in the matter
- No external agency was engaged at any point
- Communications were handled informally through personal channels
- Text messages were later deleted; no documentation preserved
Should Have Happened
- A deputy without personal relationship to arrestee should have been assigned
- Official transport should have been documented with incident report
- Chain of custody and transport procedures should have been followed
- Supervisor should have recognized and addressed conflict of interest
What Actually Happened
- Close personal friend Duva was sent to retrieve arrestee
- No documentation was created at the time of transport
- Transport was handled informally outside standard protocols
- Union president's personal relationship to both Kings was not flagged as conflict
Should Have Happened
- Notification should have followed formal chain of command only
- An external agency should have been notified due to conflict of interest
- Sheriff should have been informed but immediately recused
- All notifications should have been documented officially
What Actually Happened
- Information flowed through personal relationships and informal channels
- No external agency was contacted to handle the conflict of interest
- Sheriff remained involved despite being arrestee's brother
- Personal phone calls preceded any official documentation
Should Have Happened
- Internal department matters should not be shared with civilians
- Communications about ongoing investigations should use official channels only
- Text messages about department business should be preserved per retention policies
- Information security protocols should govern sensitive incident details
What Actually Happened
- Multiple officers texted civilian Josh Goodrich about the arrest within hours
- Personal text messages were used instead of official communication channels
- Text messages were subsequently deleted and no longer available
- Friendship networks took precedence over chain of command
Should Have Happened
- All communications referenced in reports should be preserved in original form
- Consistent preservation criteria should be applied to all evidence
- Litigation hold should have been implemented once legal action was possible
- Complete evidence chain should be maintained for independent review
What Actually Happened
- Some messages screenshotted while original messages were later deleted
- No clear criteria for what was preserved vs. deleted
- Internal reports reference communications that no longer exist
- Evidence integrity undermined by selective preservation
Should Have Happened
- Charging procedures should apply equally to all officers investigated
- Statement of charges should be prepared for all identified policy violations
- External prosecutor should review cases involving Sheriff's family
- Documentation should be consistent across parallel investigations
What Actually Happened
- Charges prepared for Marc King but no statement of charges for Scott Jones
- Differential treatment applied despite both being under investigation
- No external review of charging decisions
- Text communications from this period were later deleted
Should Have Happened
- Clear policies should exist for communication retention and evidence handling
- Standard procedures should be followed regardless of who is involved
- Conflict-of-interest policies should apply to cases involving leadership family
- External investigation should be triggered for Sheriff's relatives
What Actually Happened
- No retention policy existed for text messages or phone calls
- Normal booking procedures were bypassed for Marc King
- Personal relationships influenced decision-making
- Investigation structure created blind spots for leadership-related cases
Should Have Happened
- Internal investigation should have been opened promptly after the arrest
- Public affairs response should have been prepared for transparency
- Official statement should have addressed the incident proactively
- Formal investigation should not wait for public pressure
What Actually Happened
- Public learned of arrest through social media before official action
- Internal investigation not opened until November 23 - 17 days after arrest
- No proactive public communication from the department
- Social media disclosure highlighted delay in official response
Should Have Happened
- Union representation should ensure fair process without influencing investigation outcomes
- Same representation standards should apply equally across parallel cases
- Union involvement should be documented for transparency
- Representation should not affect MCOLES reporting categories
What Actually Happened
- Union representative actively shaped how employment matters were handled
- Same representative potentially represented multiple officers in related investigations
- Union influence extended to retirement negotiation terms
- Outcomes varied between similarly-situated officers despite same union representation
Should Have Happened
- Internal investigation should have been opened within 24-48 hours of arrest
- Evidence should be preserved immediately after incident
- Administrative action should not wait 17 days
- Sheriff should have recused himself and external agency engaged
What Actually Happened
- Investigation file not opened until 17 days after the arrest
- Critical documentation created more than two weeks after incident
- Marc King continued working during entire 17-day delay
- Sheriff Mat King did not recuse himself from oversight
Should Have Happened
- Litigation hold should have been issued when legal action became foreseeable
- All relevant communications should have been preserved
- Personal devices used for official business should be subject to retention policies
- Evidence preservation should be enforced through policy
What Actually Happened
- Multiple officers deleted text messages relevant to the investigation
- No litigation hold was ever established
- No retention policies were enforced for electronic communications
- Pattern of deletion by officers close to the arrestee suggests coordination
Should Have Happened
- Sheriff should have recused himself from all matters involving his brother
- External agency should have been engaged to investigate
- Investigation should proceed to conclusion regardless of retirement
- Information should flow through proper official channels
What Actually Happened
- Sheriff acknowledged conflict of interest but did not recuse himself
- Internal investigation terminated when retirement date was set
- Sheriff admitted information was deliberately withheld from proper channels
- Sheriff personally influenced how matter concluded
Should Have Happened
- Text messages referenced in official reports should be preserved
- Retention policy should exist for all official communications
- Internal department matters should not be shared with civilian friends
- Investigation should be opened promptly after incident
What Actually Happened
- Pohl admitted deleting text messages referenced in his internal report
- No retention policy existed for electronic communications
- Pohl texted civilian friend Goodrich about arrest the same day
- Investigation file opened 17 days after the arrest
Should Have Happened
- Officer with close personal relationship should not handle matters involving friends
- Official communications should use department systems, not personal phones
- Call logs and text messages should be preserved per retention policy
- Conflict of interest should trigger recusal from involvement
What Actually Happened
- Duva, with 20+ year friendship with Sheriff, retrieved Marc King from jail
- Personal phone used for official communications with Sheriff
- Duva admitted deleting call logs and text messages from November 2022
- Pattern of evidence destruction confirmed across multiple officers
Sources & Documentation
View in Full Context
See how this incident fits into the complete timeline of events