A 21-year-old New York man is suing the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office claiming he was wrongfully arrested and jailed for more than a month last year for internet sex crimes involving a 14-year-old Oxford girl.
In a 13-page lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, Johnny Aptkia Tlapanco claims his constitutional rights were violated by sheriff’s detectives Jon Elges and Carol Liposky, Sheriff Michael Bouchard and the county.
The criminal case against Tlapanco was dismissed, but authorities say he’s still a suspect.
Tlapanco is being represented by Southfield attorney Solomon Radner and New York attorney Ari Kresch.
The lawsuit contends it was Elges? ‘recklessly negligent, incompetent and unconstitutional behavior and acts? that led to Tlapanco’s incarceration. The suit alleges Elges did not investigate another potential person of interest in the case who was a friend of the girl and failed to research the difference between a computer username and a display name, an error that led to him pursuing and arresting the wrong person.
Radner described the police work in this case as ‘excellent,? but went on to explain the investigation itself was premised on ‘an extremely poor mistake.?
‘They (issued) a bunch of subpoenas. They subpoenaed things from Google, from the college that (Tlapanco) went to, from local phone companies. They subpoenaed lots and lots of stuff. It was all based on the wrong information,? he said. ‘Every single subpoena they issued and all that wonderful police work they did was all based on a mistake. It’s like building a wonderful, beautiful skyscraper with every amenity you can think of (on) a foundation made of sand.?
Undersheriff Mike McCabe defended the investigator.
‘The detective’s work was not sloppy,? he said. ‘Detective Elges does an outstanding job for the sheriff’s office in all of his investigations.?
‘For a couple hundred dollars, anybody can sue anybody. That doesn’t mean the lawsuit has any merit,? McCabe noted. ‘We’ll defend (against) this lawsuit very vigorously.?
Last year, Tlapanco was accused of blackmailing the Oxford girl into sending him sexually-explicit images of herself.
Sheriff’s investigators said he and the 14-year-old had connected through Kik, an instant messaging application (app) for mobile devices that allows users to talk as well as send photos and files.
Radner claims his client had zero contact with the Oxford girl.
‘Never talked to her. Never was in Michigan. Never had anything to do with her,? the attorney said.
At the time, Tlapanco was a student attending Kingsborough Community College in Brooklyn, New York. The lawsuit states he dropped out for a semester as a result of this situation.
After a four-month investigation, Tlapanco was charged in July 2014 with eight felonies including three counts of child sexually abusive activity, four counts of using computers to commit a crime and one count of accosting a child for immoral purposes.
Tlapanco spent a total of five weeks in custody ? two weeks in New York’s Rikers Island jail complex, followed by three weeks in the Oakland County Jail.
‘During those five weeks, he was very reasonably scared that he was going to spend decades in prison and a lifetime on the sex offender registry, all because of a mistake by the sheriff’s office,? Radner said.
In August 2014, the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office dropped the charges against Tlapanco and the case was dismissed in Rochester Hills 52-3 District Court.
‘We just didn’t feel our proofs were sufficient at the time,? said Oakland County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Paul Walton.
Even though Tlapanco was freed, Radner said the experience continues to haunt him.
‘It still affects him,? he said. ‘He’s still scared. He still gets scared in the middle of the night when he hears a loud noise. He’s afraid that it might be the cops at the door to take him away again.?
Although the case was dismissed, Radner explained that ‘getting thrown into a cage for five weeks and (being) extradited (to another state to face) very, very serious felonies . . . still leaves a very lasting impact and a very real impact.?
‘It was a nightmare,? he said. ‘It still is a nightmare. It’s emotional and psychological torture.?
‘If they would (issue) a handwritten letter of apology, that would probably go a very, very long way (toward helping) his psychological well-being,? Radner added. ‘But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re going to fight this thing. They’re going to fight this lawsuit and they’re going to fight him and they’re going to keep telling the media that he’s a suspect. All that does is make the nightmare live on.?
Why was the case against Tlapanco dismissed after four months of investigation?
Walton explained the case ran into ‘an international snafu? when ‘the records that we needed? couldn’t be obtained from Kik, which is based in Canada.
‘They wouldn’t honor the request for information or the subpoena,? he said. ‘At that point, we needed that information in order to pursue the prosecution.?
‘There’s no question that unfortunately, this young lady was the victim of blackmail, but we also have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who the perpetrator was,? Walton noted. ‘When the sheriff’s department presented the case, they felt that they had that evidence. We wrote the warrants and then the evidence that we thought was going to be coming from the Canadian company didn’t come.?
Canada’s privacy laws concerning the internet prevented release of the necessary records, according to Walton.
‘I wasn’t aware that Canada had kind of become the Switzerland for internet information,? he said. ‘Their privacy laws, agree or disagree with them, (have) been an impediment (in this case).?
In Tlapanco’s lawsuit, his attorneys contend Elges was pursuing the wrong person because whoever was blackmailing the girl through the Kik app was doing so under the display name ‘anonymous,? not the account username ‘anonymous,? which belonged to Tlapanco.
‘Anybody can use any display name,? Radner said. ‘A million people can have the same display name. It’s just whatever name you happen to pick when you log on. It can be President Obama, Madonna or Elvis Presley. It doesn’t mean that’s really who you are. The way you find out who the person really is, is by looking at the username, which is unique.?
According to the Kik for PC website, the display name is the name Kik users see when they view each others? profiles and communicate. The Kik username, however, is a user’s identity and is unique to that person.
‘This means two or more people can have the exact same Kik display names, but there is only one Kik username per user,? the website states. ‘A Kik username is like a phone number in this way. No two people or entities in the phone book have the same number.?
In the lawsuit, it’s stated law enforcement personnel seized several electronic devices belonging to Tlapanco and his family members and ‘no images? of the Oxford girl were found.
The suit also states an analysis of the devices indicated ‘no Kik messages (had been) sent to anyone until March 17, 2014,? whereas the Oxford girl reported on March 6 that the blackmailing began March 4.
Just because the charges were dropped doesn’t mean Tlapanco has been cleared, according to authorities.
McCabe said ‘the case is still an active, open investigation? and Tlapanco remains a suspect.
‘There are some other pieces of the investigation that we’re still trying to put together for the prosecutor so that they will be able to re-issue the warrant,? he said. ‘Right now, Kik is not cooperating with us, but there are other avenues that we can pursue that hopefully, will help us bring this case to closure.?
‘It’s not unheard of to dismiss a case,? Walton said. ‘The defendant has a right to a speedy trial and if the evidence isn’t going to be forthcoming, and you can’t proceed with a vital piece of evidence, then your options are kind of limited . . . So, you make an informed decision that (it) might be best for the case, at this point, to dismiss the charges, continue the investigation and resubmit if that evidence becomes available or alternative proofs are available.?
‘Pretending like he’s still a suspect,? said Radner, only ‘adds to the nightmare that this (situation) is for? his client and ‘does not help? reduce the damages Tlapanco could potentially be awarded if his lawsuit is successful.
According to Radner, the sheriff’s office should have just come forward and stated, ‘We made a mistake. We went after the wrong guy. We should have gone after the right guy.?
‘Instead, what they did was they made a comment to the media that he hasn’t been cleared yet and he’s still a suspect ? and that is absolute, utter nonsense,? he said. ‘They know he’s not a suspect.?
‘They may try to consider him a suspect because they’re getting sued, but they have absolutely no legal basis whatsoever to assume he’s a suspect anymore than you or me,? Radner noted.