Charges dropped for ex-MSP sergeant who fatally struck a man with unmarked SUV
A federal judge dismissed charges against a former Michigan State Police sergeant who struck a man with an unmarked patrol car as the man attempted to flee officers, ruling May 28 the officer has immunity from state prosecution under a federal protection clause.
In May 2024, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's office charged former MSP Detective Sgt. Brian Keely with one charge of second-degree murder and an alternate charge of involuntary manslaughter. Video released last year by the MSP showed Keely, driving an unmarked patrol vehicle, striking 25-year-old Samuel Sterling with the car as Sterling attempted to run away from law enforcement officers in Kentwood, a suburb of Grand Rapids, in April 2024.
Nessel had issued the charges in Kent County district court but Keely's attorneys had argued the case should be moved to federal court because the former sergeant was part of a U.S. Marshal's Service task force at the time he struck Sterling. In August, the case was moved to U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, where Judge Hala Jarbou dismissed the case May 28.
Sterling was putting air in a vehicle's tires at a gas station when officers approached him April 17, 2024. He tried to run away. Law enforcement pursued Sterling on foot and in vehicles. Sterling was running through the parking lot of a fast food restaurant when he was struck by an unmarked SUV. After being struck, Sterling told officers his whole body was in pain and struggled to move as officers handcuffed and searched him while he was on the ground, video footage shows.
Sterling was transported to a local hospital and died hours later.
Nessel, when announcing the charges, said Keely had created a very high risk of death or great bodily harm when he struck Sterling. But Jarbou stated prosecutors failed to show Keely acted with malicious intent.
Jarbou cited the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, writing since the task force Keely was a part of was focused on apprehending criminal suspects, he was carrying out his duties at the time he struck Sterling. Court documents show Sterling had outstanding felony warrants when he fled from officers who approached him.
The Supremacy Clause allows federal law to prevail over conflicting state law.
Jarbou wrote "the State has not presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute about whether Keely acted pursuant to federal law and did no more than what was necessary and proper for him to do in attempting to apprehend Sterling. Accordingly, Keely is entitled to immunity under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution."
Marc Curtis, a Norton Shores attorney who represented Keely, said in a statement: 'We are grateful that the Court recognized this case for what it truly was — a law enforcement officer doing his job in a high-risk encounter with a known fugitive."
Nessel said May 28 her office stands by its arguments that Keely was not acting reasonably when he struck Sterling. Prosecutors had argued that Keely was not entitled to federal protections because he was employed by MSP and was just a member of a Marshal's Service task force.
'I am disappointed that the case's transfer to federal court ultimately resulted in its dismissal and am deeply concerned with the precedent it sets — that individuals deemed federal officers by federal authorities can commit lethal crimes against Michigan residents with impunity," Nessel said in a statement.
Ven Johnson, a Detroit attorney representing Sterling's estate in a separate, civil lawsuit against Keely, said in a statement the ruling "sends a troubling message that a police officer can run over an unarmed man and avoid facing a criminal jury."
Jarbou is also the presiding judge in the civil lawsuit.
Contact Arpan Lobo: alobo@freepress.com
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Charges dropped for ex-MSP sergeant who fatally struck man with SUV
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump vows ‘large scale fines' after transgender athlete wins California track and field events
President Trump vowed to impose hefty fines on California after a transgender athlete won two high school track and field championships, stirring up national controversy. Trump called out California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) over the situation, saying he knows the administration could enforce penalties for allowing Jurupa Valley junior AB Hernandez to compete. 'A Biological Male competed in California Girls State Finals, WINNING BIG, despite the fact that they were warned by me not to do so. As Governor Gavin Newscum fully understands, large scale fines will be imposed!!!' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Justice Department threatened to take legal action against California public schools Monday, arguing the state's bylaw that allowed the transgender athlete to compete violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and discriminated against athletes on the basis of sex, The New York Times reported. After Hernandez's success earlier in the postseason drew national attention, California's high school sports governing body implemented a rule change for the state championship that allowed additional girls to compete and medal in Hernandez's events. She went on to win the triple jump and high jump and placed second in the long jump at this weekend's state championships. Trump signed an executive order in February that banned transgender athletes from competing in girls and women's sports after promising to do so on the campaign trail. The order directs his administration to halt funding for schools that refuse to ban transgender athletes but some states have not compiled, including Maine. Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) has said the president's order violates the state's antidiscrimination law and Trump has argued the state is violating Title IX, the federal civil rights law against sex discrimination, by allowing trans girls to compete. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Congress should grow a backbone and reclaim tariff authority
For decades Congress has been gradually ceding its constitutional authority to the executive branch of government. And the executive branch has stretched that authority far beyond anything Congress or the Constitution intended. As the branch of government charged with levying taxes, including tariffs, it's time for Congress to reclaim that constitutional authority. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution says,'The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States …' It's Congress's job to impose and collect taxes and duties, which include tariffs. It's not about whether tariffs are good or bad economic policy. It's about who has the constitutional authority to impose them. Because of the challenges created by two world wars and the occasional need for a quick U.S. response to international developments, 'Congress enacted statutes authorizing the President to declare a state of emergency and make use of extraordinary delegated powers.' Over time, Congress became concerned that presidents were taking advantage of those 'extraordinary powers.' A bipartisan Senate report released in 1974, 'A Brief History of National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers,' found 'at least 470 significant emergency statutes without time limitations delegating to the Executive extensive discretionary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Legislature, …' As a result, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (1976), ending most 'emergencies' that gave the president the justification for imposing tariffs, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (1977) or IEEPA to limit presidential overreach. According to an analysis on Congress's website, IEEPA affirmed that 'emergency authorities [are] employed only with respect to a specific set of circumstances which constitute a real emergency, and for no other purpose,' asserting that 'a state of emergency should not be a normal state of affairs.' In short, IEEPA was passed to keep a president from declaring an emergency to use tariffs as a basic tool for implementing economic and foreign policy. But that's exactly how President Trump is using them. A three-judge panel on the Court of International Trade recently called out Trump's abuse of IEEPA and ruled, 'The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,' thus striking down many of his tariffs. An Appeals Court has partially stayed the ruling to give the appellate judges time to consider the arguments. The case will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Trump's tariffs may have an uphill battle given the court's position on the 'major questions doctrine,' which says policies with significant economic impacts need clear congressional authority. No doubt that's what Republicans who are uneasy with Trump's tariff tantrums hope will happen — getting the country past the worst of the tariff turmoil without Republicans having to stand up to the president. But they may be disappointed. Trump has implied that if the court strikes down his tariff overreach, there are other ways to justify his tariffs. As the Wall Street Journal reports, 'U.S. officials are weighing their options should they need to find a new legal authority to impose the president's steep tariffs.' Remember how critical Republicans were of President Biden for searching for new legal authority when the Supremes ruled against his student loan forgiveness schemes? Would Republicans be just as critical if Trump does the same? Congress needs to reclaim its control over U.S. taxing authority, including tariffs. And the only way it can do that is either to amend IEEPA to strengthen presidential restrictions, pass a different law, or take stronger measures to challenge the president. Of course, the president would likely veto any bill. So, Congress would need the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override the veto. That won't be easy. Every Democrat will vote for the bill, not to reclaim Congress's constitutional rights, but to embarrass the president. Democrats didn't speak out when President Barack Obama exceeded his authority in granting legal status to some 830,000 undocumented children brought to the U.S. by their parents. And even though Congress has the 'power of the purse,' Democrats largely remained silent when Biden tried to spend more than $400 billion on student loans. But it will take a lot of Republicans voting with Democrats to pass legislation over a presidential veto that limits Trump's tariff powers. There was a time when House and Senate leadership zealously protected the legislative branch's constitutional authority. House Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-Texas) and Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd ( closely guarded Congress's constitutional prerogatives. Do Republicans have the courage to do the same? Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of 'On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.' Follow him on X@MerrillMatthews.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Autocrats don't act like Hitler or Stalin anymore − instead of governing with violence, they use manipulation
President Donald Trump's critics often accuse him of harboring authoritarian ambitions. Journalists and scholars have drawn parallels between his leadership style and that of strongmen abroad. Some Democrats warn that the U.S. is sliding toward autocracy – a system in which one leader holds unchecked power. Others counter that labeling Trump an autocrat is alarmist. After all, he hasn't suspended the Constitution, forced school children to memorize his sayings or executed his rivals, as dictators such as Augusto Pinochet, Mao Zedong and Saddam Hussein once did. But modern autocrats don't always resemble their 20th-century predecessors. Instead, they project a polished image, avoid overt violence and speak the language of democracy. They wear suits, hold elections and talk about the will of the people. Rather than terrorizing citizens, many use media control and messaging to shape public opinion and promote nationalist narratives. Many gain power not through military coups but at the ballot box. In the early 2000s, political scientist Andreas Schedler coined the term 'electoral authoritarianism' to describe regimes that hold elections without real competition. Scholars Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way use another phrase, 'competitive authoritarianism,' for systems in which opposition parties exist but leaders undermine them through censorship, electoral fraud or legal manipulation. In my own work with economist Sergei Guriev, we explore a broader strategy that modern autocrats use to gain and maintain power. We call this 'informational autocracy' or 'spin dictatorship.' These leaders don't rely on violent repression. Instead, they craft the illusion that they are competent, democratic defenders of the nation – protecting it from foreign threats or internal enemies who seek to undermine its culture or steal its wealth. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán exemplifies this approach. He first served from 1998 to 2002, returned to power in 2010 and has since won three more elections – in 2014, 2018 and 2022 – after campaigns that international observers criticized as 'intimidating and xenophobic.' Orbán has preserved the formal structures of democracy – courts, a parliament and regular elections – but has systematically hollowed them out. In his first two years he packed Hungary's constitutional court, which reviews laws for constitutionality, with loyalists, forced judges off the bench by mandating a lower retirement age and rewrote the constitution to limit judicial review of his actions. He also tightened government control over independent media. To boost his image, Orbán funneled state advertising funds to friendly news outlets. In 2016, an ally bought Hungary's largest opposition newspaper – then shut it down. Orbán has also targeted advocacy groups and universities. The Central European University, which was registered in both Budapest and the U.S., was once a symbol of the new democratic Hungary. But a law penalizing foreign-accredited institutions forced it to relocate to Vienna in 2020. Yet Orbán has mostly avoided violence. Journalists are harassed rather than jailed or killed. Critics are discredited for their beliefs but not abducted. His appeal rests on a narrative that Hungary is under siege – by immigrants, liberal elites and foreign influences – and that only he can defend its sovereignty and Christian identity. That message resonates with older, rural, conservative voters, even as it alienates younger, urban populations. In recent decades, variants of spin dictatorship have appeared in Singapore, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Leaders such as Hugo Chávez and the early Vladimir Putin consolidated power and marginalized opposition with minimal violence. Data confirm this trend. Drawing from human rights reports, historical records and local media, my colleague Sergei Guriev and I found that the global incidence of political killings and imprisonments by autocrats dropped significantly from the 1980s to the 2010s. Why? In an interconnected world, overt repression has costs. Attacking journalists and dissidents can prompt foreign governments to impose economic sanctions and discourage international companies from investing. Curbing free expression risks stifling scientific and technological innovation – something even autocrats need in modern, knowledge-based economies. Still, when crises erupt, even spin dictators often revert to more traditional tactics. Russia's Putin has cracked down violently on protesters and jailed opposition leaders. Meanwhile, more brutal regimes such as those in North Korea and China continue to rule by spreading fear, combining mass incarceration with advanced surveillance technologies. But overall, spin is replacing terror. Most experts, myself included, agree that the U.S. remains a democracy. Yet some of Trump's tactics resemble those of informational autocrats. He has attacked the press, defied court rulings and pressured universities to curtail academic independence and limit international admissions. His admiration for strongmen such as Putin, China's Xi Jinping and El Salvador's Nayib Bukele alarms observers. At the same time, Trump routinely denigrates democratic allies and international institutions such as the United Nations and NATO. Some experts say democracy depends on politicians' self restraint. But a system that survives only if leaders choose to respect its limits is not much of a system at all. What matters more is whether the press, judiciary, nonprofit organizations, professional associations, churches, unions, universities and citizens have the power – and the will – to hold leaders accountable. Wealthy democracies such as the U.S., Canada and many Western European countries benefit from robust institutions such as newspapers, universities, courts and advocacy groups that act as checks on government. Such institutions help explain why populists such as Italy's Silvio Berlusconi or Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, although accused of bending electoral rules and threatening judicial independence, have not dismantled democracy outright in their countries. In the U.S., the Constitution provides another layer of protection. Amending it requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states – a far steeper hurdle than in Hungary, where Orbán needed only a two-thirds parliamentary majority to rewrite the constitution. Of course, even the U.S. Constitution can be undermined if a president defies the Supreme Court. But doing so risks igniting a constitutional crisis and alienating key supporters. That doesn't mean American democracy is safe from erosion. But its institutional foundations are older, deeper and more decentralized than those of many newer democracies. Its federal structure, with overlapping jurisdictions and multiple veto points, makes it harder for any one leader to dominate. Still, the global rise of spin dictatorships should sharpen awareness of what is happening in the U.S. Around the world, autocrats have learned to control their citizens by faking democracy. Understanding their techniques may help Americans to preserve the real thing. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Daniel Treisman, University of California, Los Angeles Read more: US swing toward autocracy doesn't have to be permanent – but swinging back to democracy requires vigilance, stamina and elections I watched Hungary's democracy dissolve into authoritarianism as a member of parliament − and I see troubling parallels in Trumpism and its appeal to workers Trump's promotion of an image of strength after assassination attempt borrows from authoritarian playbook Daniel Treisman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
