TOUSSAINT

LAW

24901 Northwestern Hwy.

Suite 612
Southfield, MI 48075
313-878-6699
vjtoussaint@netscape.net
________________________________________________________________________

Mr. Ross Jones

WXYZ Channel 7
20777 W. 10 Mile Rd.
Southfield, MI 48075

RE: REQUEST FOR COMMENT COMMANDER NICHOLAS GIAQUINTO

March 31, 2022

Dear Mr. Jones,

Born, raised, and educated in the City of Detroit, my client is a member of the Detroit

Police Department where he has been employed for over twenty-nine (29) years. He has served as

an Officer, Investigator, Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Commander and has served in specialized units

including Homicide and the FBI Violent Crimes Task Force. During his service, he has been

directed to assist many officers and their family members that have been victims of crime which

is not an uncommon or forbidden practice in the Detroit Police Department and other law

enforcement agencies. Throughout his career, my client has been instructed to liaison with other

local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies on such matters many times.

The Detroit Police Departments Code of Ethics requires that all of its sworn officers

“officers “safeguard lives and property” and that there be “no compromise for crime” and the

“relentless prosecution of criminals.” (Law Enforcement Code of Ethics). Contractually my client

is obligated to have a “strong commitment to assisting victims of crime” (Detroit Police Manual
102.3). He is also obligated to “When in doubt as to the status of a case” “consult the prosecuting

attorney” (Detroit Police Manual 202.4-2) - without any distinction between law enforcement

victims of crimes or other citizens.

My review of this matter reveals the following: My client was approached for advice by

an officer under his command regarding a suspected financial crime committed against him by his

former wife after they had been divorced and a final judgment had been entered by Wayne County

Circuit Court Judge Charlene Elder. Specifically, the officer related to him that his former wife

had, without his authorization or agreement, withdrawn the officer’s balance from his bank

account. That account had been opened by him before the marriage, and his former wife was

added to the account, during the marriage. However, Judge Elder awarded the personal bank

accounts between husband and wife to the respective parties. After the Divorce Judgment, the

victim officer continued to deposit his payroll checks into this account and his former wife made

no deposits or withdraws from the account until the suspected theft. The only money in the account

at the time of the wife’s withdrawal was the officer’s payroll check proceeds, which left a balance

in the account at the time of the suspected theft of $4,388.39. The victim officer under his

command filed a complaint with his local police department – Westland P.D.

In the late fall of 2019, my client was informed by the complaining victim/officer that a

Westland Police Department Detective advised him that no charges would be issued. The detective

added that he was informed by “Assistant Prosecuting Attorney McNamara” that this was a civil,

not criminal matter. (Further investigation revealed there was no Assistant Wayne County

Prosecutor at that time with the last name “McNamara”).

On November 6th and November 7th, 2019, my client attended a conference hosted by the

International Association of Financial Crime Investigators (IAFCI). A Wayne County Prosecutor

and an Assistant Attorney General were guest speakers at the event. My client was seated at the

table with both guest speakers. While in the presence of others seated at the table, my client

discussed the facts that had been shared with him by the involved victim officer. Both attorneys

agreed that the officer was a victim of a crime. The prosecutor from Wayne County agreed to

review the evidence.

The complaining officer had provided relevant evidence of the suspected theft to my client.

Among the evidence provided were bank statements, withdrawal slips, and the Judgement of

Divorce. The withdrawal slip showed that the funds were withdrawn from the account after entry

of the Judgment of Divorce and that the complaining officer’s wife was the person who withdrew

the funds. From my client’s many years of experience and training as a police officer and

discussions with the Wayne County Prosecutor and Assistant Attorney General at the Financial

Crimes Conference, my client was convinced that there was probable cause that a felony crime

had been committed by the officer’s former wife and that the Westland Detective was incorrect in

his conclusion.

My client subsequently forwarded the evidence gathered to the Assistant Wayne County

Prosecutor referenced, who again confirmed there was probable cause for a felony crime and that

he was willing to approve a warrant based upon the facts and circumstances and evidence

presented.

It is not improper or unusual to submit a warrant request to another law enforcement

agency, with jurisdiction over the matter, when the original investigating law enforcement agency

is either too busy or otherwise unwilling to submit a request - where one is supported by facts and

evidence. By way of example, in my client’s experience as a former member of the FBI Task

Force, this commonly occurred when a warrant request was supported by fact and law, but the
involved federal law enforcement agency could not assist in the warrant request process. The

request was then submitted by local law enforcement task members to the local county

prosecutor’s office that had jurisdiction over the matter.

At the advice and recommendation of the reviewing Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor,

my client contacted a detective from Wayne County Sheriff’s Office. My client advised the

Detective of the facts and circumstances and requested he contact the Assistant Wayne County

Prosecutor involved in the investigation if he had further questions. My client hoped that if the

Detective Sheriff’s investigation supported his belief that there was probable cause that a crime

had been committed, he would submit a request for a warrant to the Assistant Prosecutor and the

Court for authorization. My client then assisted the victim officer in forwarding the evidence

supporting the investigation as well a “draft” warrant request to summarize the facts and

circumstances of the matter as related to him by the complaining officer. (On DPD, not Wayne

County Sheriff’s Office template). My client assumed that the Wayne County Sheriff would

review the evidence himself and draft his own warrant request, as it is the expected practice of

both agencies.

The Wayne County Deputy Sheriff later submitted a warrant request to the Wayne County

Prosecutor, who approved and signed it. The Deputy Sheriff then swore to the facts and evidence

presented in his warrant request to a judge, who authorized a criminal warrant to be issued against

the officer’s former wife on a felony charge.

The case was originally dismissed, upon information and belief, by an assistant prosecutor

unfamiliar with the matter and inexperienced with this type of financial crime, - “without

prejudice”, - which means the prosecutor can reissue the case at any time – so that the matter could

then be reissued and handled by the original reviewing prosecutor personally. Then, “the best
defense being a good offense”, the now defendant-wife or her representative attorney filed a

complaint regarding the case with the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office.

An investigation of the matter was conducted by the County, and, upon information and

belief, the Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor and Wayne County Sheriff were both cleared by

the County of any wrongdoing. Wayne County Undersheriff Jaafer was subsequently quoted as

saying “We reviewed the actions of the sheriff’s office employee who was involved in this warrant

and determined that he didn’t do anything inappropriate.” Upon information and belief, the

Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor was also cleared and has commented that he would sign the

warrant again if it was resubmitted to him.

My client is baffled by the actions of the Detroit Police Department, which appear to us to

potentially be retribution for his lawful and appropriate assistance of an officer under his command

who was clearly, in our opinion, a victim of a crime. We fear that the unusual and harsh treatment

he has received is in fact politically motivated. We are investigating a possible linkage to his

support of and cooperation with an EEOC Civil Rights action brought by another officer under his

command, who had earlier been removed from the Detective Bureau of the Detroit Police

Department, based upon what my client believed were false allegations of underperformance and

other unsupported allegations. My client testified in a deposition in that civil rights investigation

that the officer who brought the civil rights claim (the officer is of African American descent) was

not an underperformer but instead had been one of my client’s best and highest achieving

Command Officers. We suspect that my client’s testimony, in that case, was offensive to the high-

ranking Detroit Police Officer who had orchestrated the demotion of that officer. This current

witch hunt and the subsequent retaliation appear to us to be motivated by that past example of my
client’s good character and courage and willingness to step up in a time of need for officers under

his command.

After being cleared of wrongdoing, the deputy sheriff who signed and swore to the facts

presented in the warrant request at issue in this matter has been promoted. My client has been

subjected to both interdepartmental investigation and criminal investigation (which is ongoing).

He has been stripped of his official command, his police vehicle, and has been demoted two ranks.

We also have serious questions as to the propriety of the internal investigation against my

client, as there is blatant evidence that there may have been an inappropriate cross-over between

the Detroit Police Internal Affairs interdepartmental investigation and the criminal investigation –

which itself violates the Detroit Police Department Policy and the Garrity Doctrine, as well direct

promises at the Garrity Hearing made by interviewing Internal Affairs investigators.

Additionally, we have recently learned that the detective assigned to lead the criminal

investigation of my client may well be close personal friends with the wife of the commanding

officer who was the target of the earlier EEOC Civil Rights Investigation. We also have recently

learned that that detective may have been recalled from a previous assignment at Harbor Master

Unit and back to Internal Affairs - specifically to handle this investigation. Just before his

demotion, my client was called into a personal meeting with the high-ranking command officer at

issue and advised directly that he should “consider retiring as a Commander before he is forced to

resign under criminal charges”.

My client has devoted his entire life to fulfilling his oath to serve and protect the citizens

of his community – general citizens or police officers. He is a man of the highest character and

devotion to the law. He committed no impropriety or crime in this matter, and we fear he may is

being punished and publicly humiliated by persons with a sinister motive. We are committed to
bringing forth the truth and ensuring that justice is done in this matter so that my client is cleared

of wrongdoing and that his hard-earned reputation, rank, and position in the Detroit Police

Department are restored.

Sincerely,

Vincent J. Toussaint, Esq.