What 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
People Involved
Event Details
Event Summary
Deposition testimony revealed significant gaps between the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Office stated policies and actual practices in handling Marc King ’s arrest and its aftermath. Multiple procedures were bypassed or ignored.
Policy Gaps Identified
1. No Retention Policy for Communications
Matthew Pohl confirmed no policy exists for preserving text messages:
QWhat’s your deletion policy?
AI don’t think we have a policy that covers deletion.
2. Improper Handling of Intoxicated Detainee
Damon Duva acknowledged not following proper procedures when transporting Marc King from jail:
I guess I didn’t take the proper procedures to double [check].
The decision to house Marc King at the detective bureau rather than following normal booking procedures was questioned:
[You don’t] house people that you bring in that you’ve arrested in the detective bureau, correct? That’s not the normal procedure?
3. Policy Modernization Efforts
Captain Pohl described ongoing efforts to update policies through a partnership with Lexipol:
Currently we have partnered with Lexipol, so we are redoing our whole policy and procedure. So I meet weekly with a representative and we go over our current policies as they update them and format them in their wording. This might be a yearlong process.
Conflicts of Interest in Internal Investigations
Testimony revealed how rank affects who conducts investigations:
It would depend on who the investigation is on. Sometimes rank would play a role in that… we would prefer that lieutenants do investigations of members on their shift or could be anyone of lower rank. If it was a lieutenant or higher then it makes sense myself as the captain that I should do that investigation so a lieutenant wouldn’t be investigating a fellow lieutenant of the same rank.
This raises questions about who would appropriately investigate a case involving the Sheriff’s brother.
Work Schedule Conflict
Damon Duva was questioned about returning Marc King home knowing he was scheduled for work:
QBut you knew Marcus was supposed to report to work at 10:00 a.m., right?
QSo, you knew that he was going to – you know, at 10:00 a.m., you know, an hour after you’re taking him home, he’s supposed to be at work? You knew that, right?
Why This Matters
Systemic Issues
The testimony reveals several systemic problems:
- Policy Vacuum: No policies existed for key areas like communication retention
- Informal Decision-Making: Procedures were bypassed based on personal relationships
- Conflict of Interest Structure: The rank-based investigation system created blind spots for cases involving leadership
- Modernization Lag: Policy updates were still “a yearlong process” in progress
Impact on Accountability
Without clear policies and consistent enforcement:
- Officers had discretion to handle sensitive situations informally
- Evidence could be deleted without consequence
- Personal relationships influenced official actions
Connection to Other Events
- Duva Retrieves Marc King: The transport that bypassed normal procedures
- Text Retention Issues: Evidence of policy gaps in communication retention
- Evidence Deleted: Consequence of no retention policy
Open Questions
- Have the Lexipol policy updates been completed?
- What policies now exist for handling cases involving relatives of leadership?
- Has a retention policy been implemented?
- Were any disciplinary actions taken for policy violations?