Citizen Report No. 1764197984 - 1819622062

CLEET Number :  0188214

License Type :  Fulltime Peace Officer

License Category :  Basic Certification

License Status :  Active

License Effective Date :  08/18/2023

License Expiry Date :  N/A

The attached civil rights petition documents a series of events on October 8, 2023, involving Tecumseh Police Officers John Sanders and Aaron Dillman which, if true, raise serious Brady/Giglio concerns regarding truthfulness, unlawful conduct, constitutional violations, retaliation, and failure to intervene.

According to the petition, Officers Sanders and Dillman responded to complaints made by private citizens who accused petitioners of gestures, profanities, and alleged intimidating behavior involving their dog. Without a warrant, the officers approached the petitioner's residence and immediately encountered petitioners sitting on their front porch. When asked whether they had a warrant, one officer confirmed they did not. When petitioner expressly and repeatedly revoked consent for any encounter and ordered the officers to leave his property, both officers refused to do so and instead advanced toward him in an increasingly aggressive manner.

The petition alleges that Sanders and Dillman continued to occupy the property after the implied license to enter had been explicitly revoked—constituting an unlawful entry. Both officers repeatedly insisted they were “investigating” despite the absence of exigent circumstances, probable cause, or legal justification to remain on the property. According to the petition, their conduct escalated in direct response to petitioner’s assertion of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, including his refusal to engage in a consensual encounter and his instruction for them to leave.

The situation further deteriorated when Officer Sanders, after being told multiple times that he was trespassing and that petitioner was exercising his rights, threatened arrest unless identification was provided. After petitioner declined, Sanders placed him in handcuffs, allegedly tightened to the point of causing pain, and did so in retaliation for petitioner’s constitutionally protected speech. Officer Dillman is alleged to have stood by and failed to intervene despite having the ability and opportunity to stop Sanders’s conduct.

After petitioner was restrained, Sanders conducted a warrantless search of his person, labeled it a “Terry stop,” and then proceeded to seize and search petitioner’s mobile phone without a warrant or probable cause. The petition further alleges that Sanders and Dillman then turned their attention to petitioner's wife. After she retreated indoors—without any commands having been issued to prevent her from doing so—Dillman repeatedly ordered her to exit the home, and Sanders attempted to forcibly open the locked storm door, physically pulling on the handle multiple times. This conduct, described as an attempted break-in, allegedly placed petitioner's wife in fear for her safety and forced her to lock the main door for protection.

The petition states that the officers’ conduct—unlawful entry, retaliatory arrest, excessive force, warrantless search and seizure, attempted forced entry, coercive demands for identification, and failure to intervene—was not an isolated event but the product of official policies, customs, or practices of the Tecumseh Police Department. The pleading asserts that these policies served as the “moving force” behind the constitutional violations.

Based solely on the allegations contained in the petition, the conduct attributed to Officers Sanders and Dillman includes:

• Unlawful entry and refusal to leave private property after consent was withdrawn
• Retaliatory arrest for protected speech
• Excessive force through punitive handcuffing
• Unlawful searches of person and property, including a mobile phone
• Attempted forcible entry into a private home without a warrant
• Coercive and threatening conduct toward a civilian seeking to exercise constitutional rights
• Failure to intervene (Dillman)
• Conduct reflecting dishonesty and disregard for constitutional limits

Such misconduct, if substantiated, directly implicates Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, as it involves violations of honesty, integrity, lawful process, and constitutional compliance—traits fundamental to an officer’s credibility and ability to testify in any future criminal proceedings. The allegations reflect a willingness to ignore legal constraints, retaliate against protected conduct, misuse authority, and engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, all of which must be disclosed to criminal defendants where these officers are witnesses or affiants.

Because Brady/Giglio standards require disclosure of material that impacts officer credibility—including misconduct involving truthfulness, unlawful searches, coercive behavior, retaliation, and constitutional violations—these allegations warrant classification as Brady material for both officers pending further findings.