Cop Pulls Over the Wrong Man — CAUGHT Lying AGAIN in Court! ($450K Lawsuit)
Guilty on two of three counts. That is the verdict this evening from a jury in the assault trial of Euclid police officer Michael Amiott.
The last time Michael Amiott was caught lying, he kept his badge. This is the story of the second time. He was a police officer in Euclid, Ohio, a small city just outside Cleveland.
On an August morning in 2017, he pulled over a man named Richard Hubbard for a red light. Hubbard did everything a person is supposed to do. He handed over his ID. He answered the officer’s questions, and when he was told to step out of the car, he stepped out. A few seconds later, he was on the ground. A bystander filmed what happened to him, and the video went across the country.
Hubbard, who had done nothing wrong, was charged with resisting arrest and later cleared of every charge. Amiott was fired by the city for what he did. And then an arbitrator stepped in, overturned the firing, and handed him his badge back. Michael Amiott took the stand in his own defense, to tell the jury his side of what happened that day.
Amiott was counting on one thing: that the jury would watch the footage and see what he saw. But almost every second of that stop had been caught on camera, and a prosecutor was about to walk him through it, frame by frame, and ask him to point out the danger he swore he saw.
For over 30 years, I sat on the bench. I have watched many officers explain away the force they used with a convincing story. Very few of them have to tell that story while the footage of what they actually did plays in front of the jury. Watch what happens when it does.
“You may be seated. You may call your next witness.”
“Officer, please remain standing. Raise your right hand. In this matter, Officer, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”
“I do.”
“Thank you. Be seated. For the record, please state your name.”
“Michael Amiott.”
“Sir, you are the defendant in this case, correct?”
“Yes, sir.”
“You understand—have you discussed this with your attorney, where you understand that you cannot be compelled to testify?”
“Yes, sir.”
“You understand you will be exposing yourself to cross-examination?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Very good. Has anyone promised you or threatened you in any manner to cause you to waive and give up this right?”
“No, sir.”
“You may inquire.”
“Good morning, Officer.”
“Good morning.”
“Where are you presently employed?”
“The Euclid Police Department.”
“And do you have an OPOTA certificate?”
“Yes, I do.”
“Is that certificate in good standing?”
“Yes.”
“On August 12th, 2017, was there a time you made a decision to pull over the vehicle Richard Hubbard was traveling in?”
“I did. I was in the area. I saw the vehicle. I got behind the vehicle. I ran the license plate. It came back to a suspended driver. I got into traffic. That’s kind of a busy intersection. It’s where three roadways come apart. It’s kind of a busy intersection. At some point, I got behind the car. I don’t know if I was directly behind him initially or not or he passed me, but eventually we get on Lakeshore. When the light turns green, I get behind him. He rolls the red light at East 228th and Lakeshore, and that’s where I initiated the stop near Dollar Bank, 228 by Dollar.”
“Hey, how’s it going?”
“Good.”
“The registered owner shows a suspended license. And then make sure you stop behind the stop bar when you’re driving, and you’ve got a seat belt on too. Got your license on you?”
“Okay. Is the car in your name or what?”
“Is it her name? Okay. You got a warrant?”
“Okay. Can you cut it off and hand me the keys? That’s it.”
“What’s your name?”
“My name’s—”
“We can hear you and see you on the screen, but what are some of the things you were observing?”
“Well, when I first go up to the car, I can smell the odor of marijuana coming out of the car. That’s why I asked him to turn the car off. Just because we stopped pursuing cars about a year before this. I smell the odor of narcotics, so I want to turn the car off. I asked him for his driver’s license. He says he doesn’t have it. So, when I ask someone to turn off the car, that’s typically—if I’m going to get them out of the car, I ask them to turn off the car and hand me the keys. When I smell the odor of marijuana, we’re going to begin a drug investigation. So, we’re going to search the interior of the vehicle.
Typically, I asked him if he has a driver’s license on him. He said he doesn’t. And I think that’s the point in the video—I don’t want to mix up the order, but that’s why I asked him to hand me the car keys, because he doesn’t have an ID. I smell narcotics coming from the car. I know another officer observed some indicators. I’m not sure exactly what it is yet, but I just want to secure the keys so the vehicle can’t get mobile.
At that point, I asked him if he has a warrant because, just in my experience, he looks upset. He looks nervous, and he doesn’t have an ID. Most people have their ID when they operate a car. Not everybody brings it every time; most people do. So, that’s why I asked him if he has a warrant.
And when I asked him how to spell his name, I take my notepad out to start writing his name. So, I asked him the second time. I asked him once or twice for his ID, and then I asked him to spell his name. When I asked him to spell his name, he reached into his pocket. He pulled out a large stack of bills—the other officer said they were 20s when he testified, I don’t know—it was a large stack of bills with his Ohio ID.
So, when you have narcotics and a large amount of money, one of the things you might be concerned with is there may be weapons involved or there may be drugs involved. You smell drugs, you have a large amount of cash—a lot of times weapons are involved there.
So in the bottom left corner, we have verbal or physical danger cues and not responding to verbal commands. So some of the things we can do is officer presence, verbal or physical commands, which I’m telling him to turn around as he’s getting out of the car. Assist from other officers—Officer Mercer is there. And I take him into the escort position, which is usually your hand above the elbow, your other hand on the wrist, as I’m trying to turn him around.
When he puts his shoulder into my chest and he starts to take that third step, he’s not responding to commands, so we go to balance displacement. Balance displacement is a push or a pull to take someone off balance. You have to push him hard enough to knock them off balance, and we use that shoulder-to-ear technique which is taught. It’s very common. So you take their shoulder, push it to their ear.”
Listen to how he describes it under oath. Not: I slammed him to the ground. Balance displacement. A shoulder-to-ear technique. Taught. Common. Clinical. He is narrating the takedown of a compliant man in the calm language of a training manual. A push to knock him off balance. A hand driving his shoulder toward his ear.
Hold that voice in your head. Because in a few minutes, the prosecutor is going to play the real video of this technique and ask him to find anywhere on the tape the threat that made it necessary. He is not going to be able to.
“You may cross.”
“Thank you. Good afternoon, Officer Amiott.”
“Good afternoon.”
“Officer Amiott, when you were working on 8/12/2017 as a police officer in the city of Euclid, you heard that radio broadcast that we played earlier, did you not, from Officer Faulhammer?”
“I did.”
“Okay. And I think the language was—tell me if you think this is accurate: ‘If anyone’s at that intersection, there’s a silver Hyundai just past Wendy’s northbound getting ready to go towards Babbitt Road intersection, if you got eyes on it.’ Does that sound accurate?”
“It does.”
“Okay. And then you started to follow the vehicle, right?”
“Yes.”
“Okay. Did you hear Hubbard, Richard Hubbard’s testimony that he was in the area of Triangle Park at a stop sign and he made eye contact with you? Did you hear that testimony?”
“Yes, I did.”
“Did that occur?”
“I don’t recall that occurring, but it very well could have occurred. Okay. Yeah.”
“Did you hear him testify that when he, Richard Hubbard, was sitting at that stop sign, he looked at you and waved for you to go, and that you didn’t go and you let him go and you followed him? Question: Did you hear that?”
“I did. I did.”
“Did that happen?”
“I would assume it possibly did, sure.”
“You just don’t remember the eye contact, right?”
“Pardon? I don’t remember.”
“You don’t remember, but you’re saying it could have happened?”
“Sure.”
“Based on the way he testified, it could have happened, yes?”
“Yes.”
“In any event, you got behind that silver Hyundai, right?”
“Correct.”
“Yes. And as it was driving down Lakeshore Boulevard, you were behind it as depicted there on the screen on State’s Exhibit B at the beginning of that video. That’s accurate, right?”
“That’s accurate.”
“That’s your view of the Hyundai, behind the Hyundai, right?”
“Correct.”
“You agree with me that at that point you did not have reasonable suspicion to stop that vehicle?”
“There would not have been enough in that scenario to stop the vehicle based on him saying there’s a car in the area calling the car out. Yes, that’s correct.”
“And when you pulled behind that vehicle, your objective was to stop that vehicle somehow, right?”
“No, not necessarily. I was going to observe the vehicle.”
“Okay. And if you didn’t observe any conduct that you felt was a traffic violation, you would have followed that vehicle until it left the city?”
“No.”
“What would you have done?”
“Can you repeat the question?”
“The question is, if you didn’t see any violations as you traveled behind that vehicle that would give you reasonable suspicion to stop it, would you follow that vehicle outside the city? Let’s say it left the city. Would you then turn around?”
“I wouldn’t leave the city, no.”
“You wouldn’t. So, just to clarify, let’s say that you were following that vehicle and you observed no traffic violations upon which you believe you could stop the vehicle. Let’s assume that. Okay. Would you let the vehicle go if it went outside the city limits?”
“If there was not probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop the car, you have to let the vehicle go.”
“Okay. Excellent. Did you hear Captain Kelly talk about the proposition that if a vehicle is past the stop bar when the light changes red, then the vehicle has a right to clear the intersection? Did you hear him testify?”
“I did hear that testimony.”
“Do you disagree with that?”
“I do.”
“Okay. Tell me why you disagree with that.”
“A vehicle—the way the red light law is, the red light ordinance—it’s illegal to enter an intersection—”
“I’m not asking you about the law. I’m asking you why you believe that. Is it something you were trained on?”
“This is a red light violation. Okay.”
“So, you disagree that if a vehicle is within the intersection, it has a right to clear the intersection?”
“If a vehicle is in the intersection, it has a duty to clear the intersection. Okay.”
“And you don’t think that the stop bar defines the intersection? Is that what you’re saying?”
“It absolutely does not.”
“Right. That’s your opinion, right?”
“No.”
“So, you witnessed that happen, which you described as a stop bar violation, correct?”
“It’s a red light violation.”
“A red light violation, right?”
“Yeah.”
“Because at that intersection, a vehicle could do a right turn on red, correct?”
“It could.”
“Okay. And in order to do a right turn on red, the vehicle has to stop behind the stop sign, correct? Or behind the stop bar, correct?”
“Correct.”
“And then turn right, correct?”
“Correct.”
“Okay. That vehicle made a complete stop, correct?”
“No, it didn’t.”
“No, I don’t believe it did. I think it comes close, but it’s moving. The vehicle is moving. I don’t believe that that vehicle stops all the way.”
“Okay. Sometimes when police officers stop motor vehicles for a traffic offense, they don’t stop right away, correct?”
“Sometimes. Yeah, that’s correct. That’s correct.”
“And you expect them to stop right away, correct?”
“If they can safely do so, correct.”
“In a safe manner, right?”
“Correct.”
“Is there anything about this stop that in your mind was inappropriate, too late, took too long, anything like that?”
“No.”
“Hey, how’s it going?”
“Good.”
“Suspended license. Make sure you stop behind the stop bar if you’re driving.”
“So, you told him the reason for the stop, correct?”
“Correct.”
“You ran the plate, right?”
“Correct.”
“You learned that the registered owner was suspended, right?”
“Correct.”
“Did you know the name of the registered owner at that time?”
“I believe it was Yolimar Caraballo.”
“Caraballo. And I’m just asking you, at the time you ran it, did you know the name, the sex, the age of the person? Isn’t that something that would be important to you?”
“I didn’t know. Yeah, sure.”
“Okay. And you knew it was a female owner, correct?”
“It is listed on the LEADS if it’s male or female.”
“Okay.”
“If I took note, I don’t recall.”
“You don’t recall knowing that?”
“I don’t recall. I’ve read so many LEADS over the last five years. I don’t remember that day specifically if I looked at that or not.”
“Well, if you run a plate and it comes back that the registered owner is suspended, and the registered owner is a female and you see a male driving, are you saying you would just stop the vehicle knowing that the driver is not the registered owner?”
“No.”
“And you said that with just that knowledge that the owner is suspended, that’s not enough for you to stop the car. You already said that, right?”
“No, I did not say that.”
“Is that enough for you to stop the car?”
“Give me a different scenario.”
“If you know that the owner of the vehicle is suspended and the owner of the vehicle is a female, but you can’t even determine if the driver of the vehicle is a female, in that case, do you have the right to stop the vehicle?”
“Per our in-service training in the Euclid Police Department, yes. That’s what we were trained.”
“Why would you say no just a minute ago?”
“Because you’ve given me several different scenarios and I’m getting confused.”
“Okay. So, you’re confused. You’re confused, I get it. In any event, you didn’t take any further steps. You stopped the vehicle for that proceed right on red, correct?”
“I stopped the car for a red light violation.”
“So, you said, ‘Give me the keys.’ And he responded by asking why you pulled him over, right?”
“He did. And I already—”
“And then you said, ‘Give me the car keys.’ And then he did, right?”
“Yes.”
“Do you deem that as some kind of non-compliance?”
“It’s an indicator. I wouldn’t say that it’s total non-compliance, but we do look for things for compliance on traffic stops like that. Very simply, sometimes people won’t put their car in park. It can—”
“I’m not asking you for an example.”
“Sure.”
“What I’m going to ask you is: I asked you if you took that as non-compliance. Your answer was, ‘I took it as an indicator.’ An indicator of what?”
“Of possible non-compliance.”
“Okay. So, you heard him ask you, though, ‘Why did you stop me?’ Right?”
“I explained why I stopped him.”
“Did you? My question is, you heard him ask you, ‘Why did you stop me?’ Right?”
“I did hear that.”
“Okay. And if you believe his testimony that he felt that he was being profiled because you followed him, do you think it’s unreasonable for him to ask, ‘Why did you stop me?'”
“Objection.”
“I thought it was suspicious because I told him why I stopped him initially. He didn’t question it. But when I asked him for the keys, that’s where—I asked him for the car keys because I could smell the narcotics from the car, and then he started asking me about the stop. I just wanted to get the keys. That was it.”
“Okay. You said you told him why you stopped him, but you didn’t say, ‘I stopped you because my partner said that silver Hyundai looks suspicious.’ You didn’t tell him that, right?”
“No.”
“Okay. So then, with that knowledge in mind, my question to you is: Did you find it unreasonable or unusual that he would say to you, ‘Why did you stop me?’ Yes or no?”
“No.”
“Okay. But with the exception of him asking you that question, so far everything is 100% compliance, right?”
Now watch the prosecutor do something slow and devastating. He walks through everything Hubbard actually did and makes Amiott agree to it one piece at a time. He pulled over. He handed over the keys. He gave his ID. He answered the questions. He stepped out when told. And at each step: That was compliance, right? And Amiott has to keep saying yes.
Here is why it matters. Force is only ever lawful as a response to something—to resistance, to a threat, to danger. If the man did everything he was asked, there is nothing left for the force to be a response to. The prosecutor is laying down a floor of admitted facts, and the officer’s whole story is about to fall straight through it.
“I want to keep everything in chronological order. I don’t know if the name calling is going on yet. I don’t know. But he’s done everything I’ve asked him to thus far. I think I asked him for an ID twice. He didn’t provide—”
“Hold on. Hold on a second. I don’t want you to go on and narrate. We’ve already gone through that. You heard him—you heard yourself say, ‘You have a license?’ Then we know that it was inaudible whatever he said, right?”
“Right.”
“We’ll get to the ID part. Okay. But my question to you is: At this point in the video, at 10:25:01, isn’t it true that with the exception of him saying, ‘Why did you stop me?’ everything else was in compliance, from the stop to the giving of the keys to everything, right?”
“You could say that.”
“Okay. So now at 10:25:12, did you hear him say—did you hear yourself say, ‘You don’t have your ID on you?’ Did you hear you say that?”
“Yes.”
“So you asked him two questions, right? You said, ‘You don’t have your ID on you? You got a warrant?’ Right?”
“I asked him if he had a warrant.”
“Now, you already asked him one time if he had a warrant. He told you no, correct?”
“Correct.”
“You learned at the end of all of this drama that he did not have a warrant, right? He never had a warrant, right?”
“He never had a warrant, no.”
“Okay. Now you’re asking him the second time, ‘Do you have a warrant?’ Right?”
“Correct.”
“And let’s see what he says. Does he say no warrant for the second time?”
“I believe so, yeah.”
“Okay. And then you ask him, why is he so upset, right?”
“Correct.”
“So then when you ask him, ‘So why are you so upset?’ he responds by saying something to the effect, ‘Because I looked at you and you looked at me and you called my car out,’ right? You heard him say that?”
“I think, yeah. He says—I thought he said your partner called my car out or something of that nature.”
“So, let me ask you this. When you asked him, ‘Why are you upset? Why are you so upset?’ was it clear to you that the essence of his response was, ‘I’m upset because I think you just targeted me’? Was that—that wasn’t your understanding?”
“No.”
“Okay. But the words he used were, ‘You called the car out,’ or ‘Your partner called the car out,’ right?”
“He does use those words, yes.”
“Okay. But you didn’t take that to mean he’s upset because he felt like, as he testified, ‘I’ve been targeted.’ You didn’t take it as that, right?”
“Right after that dialogue, you asked him, ‘What’s your name?’ right?”
“Yes.”
“He immediately told you, ‘My name’s Richard Hubbard,’ right?”
“Correct.”
“Again, compliance, right?”
“Sure.”
“Immediately, right? ‘What’s your name?’ ‘Richard Hubbard.'”
“He didn’t give me his ID in his pocket.”
“Question: When you said, ‘What’s your name?’ he said, ‘Richard Hubbard,’ right?”
“When you said, ‘Richard, how do you spell it?’ meaning Hubbard, he spelled it for you, right?”
“No, he—I asked him how to spell Hubbard.”
“And you’re saying he didn’t spell it for you?”
“No, he pulled out a large wad of money with his ID and handed me an ID.”
“All right. So, right there at 10:25:48, he’s handing you his ID, correct?”
“He does hand me an ID.”
“You have the ID in your right hand, right?”
“I took the ID from him, yeah.”
“The keys are on top of the car, right?”
“I believe they’re on top of the car.”
“Now, at that point, so far, he’s in full compliance, right? And he handed you his ID, right?”
“Correct.”
“And you have a radio and you have his ID, right?”
“Correct.”
“You asked him twice if he has warrants, and he said no both times, right?”
“Correct.”
“And you could have just radioed in and run his ID and found out everything in the world about him. Is that true?”
“I wouldn’t have done that.”
“I’m just asking you if it’s true. You could have done that.”
“I could have done that, true.”
“You’re a police officer, right?”
“Correct.”
“You have that ability, right?”
“Correct.”
“You have a dispatcher that could tell you that—that can print out a LEADS with all the information about that person whose ID you have, correct?”
“Correct.”
“And that dispatcher could tell you if that person has wants or warrants, right?”
“Correct.”
“They could tell you if they’re a dangerous person or a dangerous felon, right?”
“Correct.”
“You have that ability to do that. You didn’t do it, right?”
“I did not do it, no.”
Here is the choice that turned the traffic stop into a beating. Amiott had Hubbard’s ID in his hand and a radio on his shoulder. He admits he could have simply called it in and learned everything about this man in seconds: any warrants, any suspension, whether he was dangerous at all. That is the safe, normal, trained thing to do.
He admits he didn’t do it. Instead, he put the ID in his pocket and said, “Get out of the car.” Officers are trained to slow a situation down when they have the chance. Amiott had the calm, easy path literally in his hand and picked the one that ended with a man’s face on the concrete.
“And you didn’t. And you could have also found out at the same time whether he was suspended or not, right?”
“By running it through the radio?”
“Yes.”
“Yes.”
“You could have found out if he had a DUI suspension, which is probably the most serious kind of suspension, right?”
“Yes.”
“But you didn’t do any of that stuff, right?”
“Right.”
“What you did was you said, ‘Get out of the car,’ right?”
“No.”
“Okay. Let’s play the video. I’m going to ask you to watch your right hand where you have the ID in your right hand, and then listen to what happens next at 10:25:53.”
“All right. You just said step out. Your left hand is going on his door, and your right hand is putting his ID into your pocket. Is that a fair statement?”
“I believe I’m putting my notebook in my pocket. His ID may be there as well.”
“If his ID isn’t there, where would it be?”
“Could be on the roof of the car. I’m not sure. Sometimes I clip it underneath my pen. I clip IDs underneath my pen. I mean, it could be.”
“But you have custody and control of his ID. It could have been run. That’s the point, right?”
“I do. I do.”
“Okay. Now, isn’t it true that Richard Hubbard did nothing but comply when you said get out of the car? Is that true or false?”
“When I asked him to get out of the car, he started stepping out of the car. That’s correct.”
“So you already admitted that when you told him to step out of the car, there was nothing but compliance. He was stepping out of the car, correct?”
“There was compliance after I gave him multiple—asked him multiple times on the ID and his car keys. I asked him twice each time. There’s a difference.”
“I’m asking you—we’re at a point already where I’m asking you about exiting the car. Do you understand that? Are we on the same page?”
“We are.”
“Okay. So, when you asked him to get out of the car, my question was: He complied with that. He didn’t in any way not comply, right? Yes or no?”
“Wait.”
“Okay. So, I’m going to play this. I want you to watch it and tell me if you see anything different than this: When you open the door, Richard Hubbard scoots to the side in his seat. Both of his feet go onto the pavement. He stands up. He goes like that. And then when you say turn around for the second time, he starts trying to turn around. Tell me if you see anything other than that. Okay.”
“Did you see anything other than that?”
“Yes.”
“What did you see?”
“He starts to take three steps. He gets out of the car. I have his arm. I’m trying to guide him to turn around. He takes a step forward with his left foot. He puts his left shoulder into my chest. I tell him to turn around again. He takes a step forward to his right, so his feet are even. His feet are pointed at me. He’s not turning around. And then he starts to take a third step. That’s when I push him into the car.”
“Let me ask you this, and we’re going to play it one more time. Isn’t it true that as he was stepping out of the car, you said, ‘Face away from me’ the first time? As he’s stepping—”
“I believe that’s correct.”
“So as he’s rising, you were saying, ‘Face away from me,’ right?”
“Correct.”
“Okay. Then within a second, you said, ‘Face away from me’ again, right?”
“It’s pretty quickly, yeah.”
“Okay. And then will you agree with—well, do you notice that his feet are planted like that, just flat when he’s facing you when he gets out of the car?”
“When he initially gets out, I would say that’s fair, yeah.”
“So, let me ask you this: If he’s standing like this and you’re standing like this facing him and you tell him to face away, isn’t it true that he has to either go like this or he has to go like this with his right or his left foot to turn around? True or not true?”
“That’s true.”
“Okay. So, with that in mind, I want you to watch this and tell me if you see, as soon as you say for the second time in rapid-fire succession, ‘Turn away from me,’ if he doesn’t indeed pick up his right foot and try to go like this, and then you slam him into the doorway. Just tell me if you see that or not.”
“Do you remember my question? Can you repeat it?”
“My question was: Did you just see that when he stepped out of the vehicle and his feet were planted on the ground laterally like this, and you said in rapid-fire succession for the second time, ‘Face away from you,’ did you see his right foot move in a manner that he was trying to turn around, and then you slammed him into the car? Did you see that or not?”
“No.”
This is the heart of it. On direct, Amiott gave the jury his version: Hubbard put a shoulder into his chest and stepped toward him—aggression that justified the takedown.
Now the prosecutor plays the tape and freezes it. He shows that Hubbard’s feet were planted facing the officer, and that when he was told to face away, he lifted his right foot to turn, doing exactly what he was ordered to do. And that is the moment Amiott slammed him into the car.
The prosecutor asks him to admit what is on the screen. Amiott says he does not see it, but the jury is watching the same frames he is. This is the gap between what an officer writes in his report and what the camera actually recorded. And here they are: two different stories.
“At this point, at 10:26:11, the Taser had already been deployed, right?”
“Correct.”
“You both went to the ground, right?”
“Correct.”
“At 10:26:11, do you see Richard Hubbard clutching his chest?”
“It appears that he is.”
“Would that be an understandable reaction to somebody that’s getting tased with 50,000 volts?”
“Sure.”
“Do you agree that he was probably in pain?”
“I agree.”
“So, he’s on the ground—you agree—clutching his chest, and he’s in pain, right?”
“Right.”
“Okay. And that’s at 10:26:11 for the record. I’m going to play the video. Do you agree with me now that at 10:26:14 he’s still wiggling around on the ground with his hands on his chest, yes or no?”
“It appears that’s what’s happening.”
“Is it fair to conclude that he’s still in pain or feeling the effects of the Taser?”
“I wouldn’t know if he’s still in pain or not.”
“Or feeling the effects of the Taser.”
“When the Taser’s off, it’s—”
“You heard testimony that it’s a five-second blast if it’s not reactivated, correct?”
“Correct.”
“So, it would go for five seconds, true?”
“Correct.”
“As soon as those five start, I’m going to continue the video at 10:26:14. I just paused it at 10:26:18. Did it appear to you that he was still on his back with his arms on his chest, wiggling around as if he’s in pain, yes or no?”
“Yes.”
“Okay. And that’s when you jumped on top of him, even though it’s partially off-screen, right? You got on top of him.”
“Yes, sir.”
“Okay. So, you got on top of him while he’s on the ground with his hands clutched to his chest, wiggling around, feeling the effects of the Taser, correct?”
“Yes or no?”
“No.”
“Okay. Now, right there at 10:26:22, you’re throwing several strikes with your right hand to his head or face area, true?”
“Yes.”
“After he was wiggling around on the ground with his hands on his chest, and then you admittedly jumped on top of him, you’re saying that he then grabbed you and just interlocked with you. Is that your testimony, yes or no?”
“Yes.”
“Okay. So then you’re saying that what appears to be you picking him up, slamming him down, picking him up, slamming him down, picking him up, slamming him down was not really you doing it. It was a consequence of him doing something. That’s your testimony, right?”
“He’s getting picked up—I am lifting up. He’s getting lifted up because he’s holding on to me, holding my arms, and I am putting him onto the ground. My forearm is across his face, yes.”
“How many punches did you see?”
“I see that many punches thrown. I did throw, I think it was four or five punches. I think I tried to count. I think it was five.”
“With your right hand?”
“I threw five punches with my right hand, yes.”
“While he was flat on his back, correct?”
“And he had his left arm splayed out, correct?”
“No, not at the time I started throwing the punches. When I let go of his arm, he starts grabbing at my arms again.”
“So far at this point, there have been a couple—I counted three flurries of punches, fair?”
“I believe that’s accurate. It’s fair.”
“During any of those flurries of punches, did he swing back at you even one time? Yes or no?”
“Yes.”
“During the three flurries of punches that you threw, did he swing back at you one time?”
“While I was throwing the punches, no.”
After the Taser, Hubbard is on his back, clutching his chest, 50,000 volts still running through him. Amiott admits he then climbed on top of the man and threw five punches with his right hand at his head.
So, the prosecutor asks the one question the law turns on: During all of those punches, did Hubbard swing back even once?
No, not once.
There is a Supreme Court case, Graham v. Connor, that governs exactly this. Police force has to match the threat actually in front of the officer. A man flat on his back, one hand up covering his face, not throwing a single punch, is not a threat. Five punches to that man is not gaining control. It is a beating. And the officer just counted them out himself.
“Did you notice that he was trying to cover up his face with the hand that he had available to cover up?”
“Which time?”
“Well, let’s go through them. The first time, yes or no? Was he trying to cover up with his free hand?”
“He was grabbing at my hands the first time, and then he started covering his face when I threw the strikes.”
“Are you saying he was grabbing at your hands while you were throwing punches at him?”
“No, I’m not.”
“Are you saying that you were throwing punches at him because he was grabbing at your hands?”
“Yes.”
“Okay. Is there anywhere in the video where you could say, ‘Oh, yeah. Right there, he’s grabbing my hands’? Yes or no?”
“Yes. Yeah.”
“Okay. Where?”
“Well, right now he’s grabbing my hands.”
“Okay. Right now?”
“Yeah.”
“So, isn’t what we just saw a series of four or five punches with your right hand on him, and then we hear that foul language, and then you see three left hands from you, correct?”
“Correct.”
“Okay. One of the most important things in police work is truth and honesty, correct?”
“Correct.”
“And that goes also in preparing reports, sure?”
“How long have you been with the Euclid City PD?”
“Testified August of 2014. So, six to eight years, going into my ninth year. Eight, nine years.”
“When did you start?”
“August of 2014.”
“And where were you employed before that?”
“North Kingsville. North Kingsville Police Department.”
“Correct. How long were you employed in North Kingsville?”
“I was only employed a few months in North Kingsville, because Euclid will not allow you to carry two badges, and Euclid pays significantly more.”
“Were you employed for one month there?”
“I thought it was maybe a couple months, but Euclid said I have to either leave North Kingsville or come aboard Euclid. So that’s what I did.”
“What about before that? Where were you employed?”
“City of Mentor.”
“When did you work for the Mentor Police Department?”
“2013 to 2014.”
“What was your last day of employment?”
“April 2014.”
“If I tell you that you submitted a resignation on April 3rd, 2014, would that refresh your recollection?”
“Sure.”
“And why did you submit that letter of resignation?”
“Because I resigned.”
“Is it true that on April 3rd, 2014, Chief Knight brought you into the office and told you that as a result of an internal investigation that was completed alleging that, amongst other things, you falsified information on a police report, he was going to terminate you that day? Is that a true statement?”
“Yes.”
“And then is it true that when he told you that, without prompting, you asked the Chief if you could have the opportunity to resign? Is that true?”
“True.”
“Then is it true that on that same day, April 3rd, 2014, the Chief’s office prepared a one-sentence resignation letter for you and you signed it? Isn’t that true?”
“That’s true.”
“And isn’t it true that then that was your last day of employment there, correct?”
“That’s true.”
“Thank you. No further questions.”
“You may step down.”
“From my perspective, there was an inability for him to get out of that vehicle without making contact with you. Based upon the evidence presented and the pre-sentence investigation, the court at this time will impose a sentence of 90 days, require you to pay a fine of $1,000, and will require you to pay the court costs. In addition, the court will suspend the sentence of 90 days, place you on non-reporting community control for a period of one year. If you violate during that one year, then the court will retain the ability to impose the sentence.”
Before he sat down, the prosecutor asked one more question, and it had a purpose: Truth and honesty. That is one of the most important things in police work, isn’t it?
Amiott agreed.
Then the jury found out why he asked. Years earlier at another department, Amiott had been caught falsifying a police report and allowed to quietly resign before they could fire him.
This time, jurors watched the same video he had just tried to explain away. They found him guilty of assault and violating Richard Hubbard’s civil rights.
But here is the real lesson of this case, and it fits in a single sentence: Everything that ever saved Michael Amiott was written on paper.
The resignation letter that buried his first lie.
The arbitrator’s ruling that put his badge back on after the beating.
The appeals court decision that erased his conviction—not because he was innocent (the court itself said excessive force was used), but on a technicality: his trial had taken too long.
And one last sheet of paper: the city of Euclid’s check to Richard Hubbard, reported at $450,000.
Everything that ever told the truth about Michael Amiott was on video, and every single time, someone found a piece of paper to answer it with.
