Adverse Possession in Michigan – Can Someone Claim Your Property?

Adverse Possession in Michigan – Can Someone Claim Your Property?

Mar 29, 2024 | Blog, Michigan Crime, Michigan Laws, Your Rights

Understanding Adverse Possession in Michigan

Michigan recognizes adverse possession, a legal doctrine allowing someone to acquire ownership of real property they’ve occupied for a specific period, even without a formal title.

The Statute: MCL 600.5801

The relevant statute governing adverse possession is MCL 600.5801 [MCL 600.5801], titled “Limitations of actions – real property.” It establishes time limits for filing legal actions regarding land ownership.

Subsection (4) is crucial, stating a 15-year limitation period “in all other cases under this section.” This implies that to gain title through adverse possession, one must continuously possess the land for fifteen years.

600.5801 Limitation on actions; time periods; defendant claiming title under deed, court-ordered sale, tax deed, or will; other cases.

Sec. 5801.

     No person may bring or maintain any action for the recovery or possession of any lands or make any entry upon any lands unless, after the claim or right to make the entry first accrued to himself or to someone through whom he claims, he commences the action or makes the entry within the periods of time prescribed by this section.
    (1) When the defendant claims title to the land in question by or through some deed made upon the sale of the premises by an executor, administrator, guardian, or testamentary trustee; or by a sheriff or other proper ministerial officer under the order, judgment, process, or decree of a court or legal tribunal of competent jurisdiction within this state, or by a sheriff upon a mortgage foreclosure sale the period of limitation is 5 years.
    (2) When the defendant claims title under some deed made by an officer of this state or of the United States who is authorized to make deeds upon the sale of lands for taxes assessed and levied within this state the period of limitation is 10 years.
    (3) When the defendant claims title through a devise in any will, the period of limitation is 15 years after the probate of the will in this state.
    (4) In all other cases under this section, the period of limitation is 15 years.
Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Elements of Adverse Possession

To successfully claim adverse possession in Michigan, the claimant (squatter) must demonstrate they possessed the property in a way that meets the following criteria:

  • Actual Possession: This implies actively utilizing the land and regarding it as one’s possession. Infrequent or irregular use would not meet the criteria.
  • Visible and Open: The possession should be evident to anyone observing the property. Fences, landscaping, or structures built demonstrate this.
  • Notorious: The possession should be known or readily discoverable by the rightful owner. This doesn’t require the owner’s actual knowledge, but the use should be such that the owner could have discovered it with reasonable diligence.
  • Exclusive: The possession should prevent others, including the rightful owner, from using the land.
  • Continuous and Uninterrupted: Possession must be ongoing for the entire 15-year period. Gaps or breaks in possession could weaken the claim.
  • Hostile: This doesn’t imply animosity towards the true owner. It simply means the possession is adverse to the owner’s rights, suggesting a claim of ownership independent of the owner’s permission.

We’ll Take That From You.

MCL 600.5821 addresses limitations for government entities [MCL 600.5821]. Government entities like municipalities and road commissions are generally not subject to adverse possession claims.

Additionally, the “hostile” element can be tricky. Permission from the true owner, even verbal, can disrupt the claim.

Consulting an attorney is highly recommended to assess the specific facts of a potential adverse possession case.

Potential Issues

Successfully establishing adverse possession allows the claimant to gain legal title to the property.

However, there are potential drawbacks. The process can be lengthy and require significant evidence. Additionally, if the true owner contests the claim, litigation can be costly.

Real Questions from Real Calls

Question: I have been living in a tent for 15 years in a Michigan State Park. Can I claim that property as my own under the adverse possession laws?

Unfortunately, you cannot claim ownership of the land in the Michigan State Park through adverse possession for a few reasons:

  • Government Immunity: MCL 600.5821 exempts government-owned land from adverse possession claims [MCL 600.5821]. State parks fall under this category, meaning no matter how long you’ve resided there, you can’t acquire ownership through adverse possession.

While you’ve met the time requirement (15 years in Michigan), the other elements likely wouldn’t hold up either.

  • Permission: Living in a state park typically requires permission, even if it’s just following camping regulations. This suggests you wouldn’t be able to establish “hostile” possession, a crucial element.

Here’s what you can do:

  • Contact Park Rangers: Explain your situation to the park rangers. They might be able to offer alternative solutions, like designated camping areas or low-cost housing programs.
  • Seek Legal Advice: An attorney specializing in property law can provide a more nuanced perspective on your situation. There might be other legal avenues to explore, depending on the specifics.

While claiming ownership through adverse possession isn’t possible in this case, there might be other options to consider.

Related Articles

Cannabis cash transactions aren’t suspicious says IRS

Cannabis cash transactions aren’t suspicious says IRS

Following The MoneyLarge cash transactions by marijuana businesses should not be automatically flagged as suspicious, as per the latest IRS guidance. The tax agency's guidance aims to provide clarity on the federal Bank Secrecy Act, which mandates businesses,...

Our Kids are Dying of Drug Overdoses

Our Kids are Dying of Drug Overdoses

THE KIDS AREN’T ALRIGHT, THEY’RE DYING OF DRUG OVERDOSESFrom May 2022 to May 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported an alarming 37 percent increase in American lives lost due to overdoses, totaling over 112,000 fatalities. This staggering surge...

Rescheduling Marijuana Would Be a Threat to Public Health

Rescheduling Marijuana Would Be a Threat to Public Health

Kevin Sabet of Smart Approaches to Marijuana says policy makers need to learn from their mistakes with hemp when considering marijuana rescheduling. It’s rare for policymakers to get a preview of the consequences of pending policies, but the descheduling of...

Meet MiChap

Meet MiChap

Climate and Health Adaptation ProgramYou must save yourself from yourself.Meet MICHAPOur Vision: Michigan's public health system fosters equitable health and wellbeing as it adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. Our Mission: The Michigan Climate...

More Posts

Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio

Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio (1968)Background On October 31, 1963 while conducting his regular patrol in downtown Cleveland, seasoned Cleveland Police detective Martin McFadden, who...

read more
Disciplining Student’s Speech Violates First Amendment

Disciplining Student’s Speech Violates First Amendment

Mar 28, 2024 | Blog, USA news

You go girl!!!

A public high school was found to have violated the First Amendment when it suspended a student from her cheerleading team for using profane speech off campus.

Mahanoy Area Sch Dist v BL, No 20-255, ___ US ___ (June 23, 2021).

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that Pennsylvania high school officials did not possess the jurisdiction to reprimand a student for her off-campus, profane Snapchat post, which was made out of frustration after not being selected for the varsity cheerleading squad.

The court ruled 8-1 that the social media post did not cause a substantial disruption under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. 

A female student at Mahanoy Area High School in Pennsylvania, who did not make the school’s varsity cheerleading team but was instead placed on the junior varsity team, expressed her frustration by posting two images on Snapchat while at a local store during the weekend.

One image included explicit language and gestures alongside general comments about cheerleading and school, although it did not specify the school by name.

The second image only contained the following text: “Love how me and [another student] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but tha[t] doesn’t matter to anyone else?”

The cheerleading coach and school administrators were made aware of B.L.’s posts and subsequently decided to suspend her from the team for a duration of one year.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Through her parents, Levy sued in federal court, asserting that the disciplinary action violated her First Amendment right to free speech. Additionally, they contended that it was the responsibility of her parents, not school officials, to administer discipline.

A federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit both ruled in favor of Levy, stating that the Tinker substantial disruption standard does not apply to off-campus, online student speech.

Alternatively, the 3rd Circuit also determined that, even if Tinker was deemed applicable, the post did not reach the threshold of causing substantial disruption.

The school district wasted tax dollars and appealed the Supreme Court decision.

Justice Stephen Breyer Reasoning that a school’s regulatory interests are diminished when a student partakes in off-campus social media speech, it was identified that three distinct features of social media speech govern such an approach.

  • With regard to off-campus speech by students, school officials rarely stand in loco parentis. “Geographically speaking, off-campus speech will normally fall within the zone of parental, rather than school-related, responsibility.”
  • Courts should be skeptical of school officials’ regulatory interest in policing student social media speech, given that such speech could take place anytime during a 24-hour day.
  • Schools have an interest in protecting even unpopular student speech, because “America’s public schools are the nurseries of democracy.”

He emphasized the importance of officials maintaining regulatory oversight over social media speech involving cyberbullying, harassment, threats, or breaches of school security devices.

Justice Alito’s concurring opinion advises public schools to exercise thoughtful caution when seeking to regulate off-campus speech.

Related Articles

Cannabis cash transactions aren’t suspicious says IRS

Cannabis cash transactions aren’t suspicious says IRS

Following The MoneyLarge cash transactions by marijuana businesses should not be automatically flagged as suspicious, as per the latest IRS guidance. The tax agency's guidance aims to provide clarity on the federal Bank Secrecy Act, which mandates businesses,...

Our Kids are Dying of Drug Overdoses

Our Kids are Dying of Drug Overdoses

THE KIDS AREN’T ALRIGHT, THEY’RE DYING OF DRUG OVERDOSESFrom May 2022 to May 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported an alarming 37 percent increase in American lives lost due to overdoses, totaling over 112,000 fatalities. This staggering surge...

Rescheduling Marijuana Would Be a Threat to Public Health

Rescheduling Marijuana Would Be a Threat to Public Health

Kevin Sabet of Smart Approaches to Marijuana says policy makers need to learn from their mistakes with hemp when considering marijuana rescheduling. It’s rare for policymakers to get a preview of the consequences of pending policies, but the descheduling of...

Meet MiChap

Meet MiChap

Climate and Health Adaptation ProgramYou must save yourself from yourself.Meet MICHAPOur Vision: Michigan's public health system fosters equitable health and wellbeing as it adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. Our Mission: The Michigan Climate...

More Posts

Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio

Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio (1968)Background On October 31, 1963 while conducting his regular patrol in downtown Cleveland, seasoned Cleveland Police detective Martin McFadden, who...

read more
Red Flag Rules for Extreme Risk Protection Orders-Firearms Act

Red Flag Rules for Extreme Risk Protection Orders-Firearms Act

Mar 27, 2024 | Blog, Michigan Laws, Your Rights

Michigan Supreme Court – These changes follow the creation of the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act and amendments to the Firearms Act. Red Flag Laws.

Effective February 13, 2024

On February 6, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court issued ADM File No. 2023-24, which adopts amendments to MCR 3.701 and the addition of MCR 3.715, .716, .717, .718, .719, .720, .721, and .722, effective February 13, 2024.

These changes follow the creation of the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act and amendments to the Firearms Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Revised Judicature Act in May of 2023.

  • MCR 3.715 Definitions. Several terms are defined within this rule, including “complaint,” “existing action,” “minor,” “petitioner,” and “respondent.” In addition, MCR 3.715 indicates that the terms “dating relationship,” “possession or control,” “family member,” “guardian,” “health care provider,” “law enforcement agency,” and “law enforcement officer,” mean those terms as defined in MCL 691.1803.
  • MCR 3.716 Commencing an Extreme Risk Protection Action. An extreme risk protection action is an independent action commenced by filing a complaint with the family division of the circuit court. A complaint may be filed regardless of whether the respondent owns or possesses a firearm and must be prepared on a form approved by the State Court Administrative Office and submitted with the complaint. An extreme risk protection action may only be commenced by
    • the spouse or former spouse of the respondent;
    • an individual who has a child in common with, has or has had a dating relationship with, or resides or has resided in the same household as the respondent;
    • a family member;
    • a guardian of the respondent;
    • a law enforcement officer; or
    • a health care provider, under certain circumstances.

MCR 3.716 also details requirements for the complaint, a complaint against a minor, and venue.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

  • MCR 3.717 Dismissals. Except as otherwise specified in the rules, an action for an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) may only be dismissed upon motion by the petitioner prior to the issuance of an order.
  • MCR 3.718 Issuing Extreme Risk Protection Orders. Except as otherwise provided in the rule, the court must rule on a request for an ex parte order within one business day of the filing date of the complaint and must expedite and give priority to ruling on a request for an ex parte order. MCR 3.718 also specifies the factual requirements for granting an ex parte order as well as the procedures for immediate emergency ex parte orders, an anticipatory search warrant, and hearings. The court must expedite and give priority to hearings required by the extreme risk protection act and must schedule a hearing for the issuance of an ERPO under certain circumstances detailed in the rule.
  • MCR 3.719 Orders. This rule details the form and scope of an order and stipulates the respondent’s response requirements, along with restrictions on concealed weapons and the process for surrendering firearms. Service, notice, and clerk of the court responsibilities are also covered in MCR 3.719.
  • MCR 3.720 Modification, Termination, or Extension of Order. The petitioner may file a motion to modify or terminate the ERPO and request a hearing after the order is issued. The respondent may file one motion to modify or terminate an ERPO during the first six months that the order is in effect and one motion during the second six months that the order is in effect.
  • MCR 3.721 Contempt Proceedings for Violation of Extreme Risk. In general, an ERPO is enforceable under MCL 691.1810(4)–(5), 691.1815(4), and 691.1819(4). MCR 3.721 outlines the guidelines for motions to show cause, service, search warrants, arraignment, pleas of guilty, scheduling or postponing hearings, prosecution after arrest, and violation hearings.
  • MCR 3.722 Appeals. Appeals must generally comply with subchapter 7.200. Either party has an appeal of right from
    • an order granting, denying, or continuing an ERPO after a hearing under MCR 3.718(D); or
    • an order granting or denying an extended ERPO after a hearing under MCR 3.720(B).

The respondent has an appeal of right from a judgment of sentence for criminal contempt entered after a contested hearing.

The respondent has the lawful right to appeal a judgment of sentence for criminal contempt entered following a contested hearing.

Chief Justice Clement concurred with the proposed adoption of the ERPO court rules, but she wrote separately to address her concerns regarding inconsistent legal terminology used in the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act..

Among other linguistic inconsistencies, she emphasized that the Act “requires an individual to file “a summons and complaint” to initiate an ERPO action” but the nature of ERPO actions is consistent with that of a petition—not a complaint.

The Michigan Supreme Court has developed a range of SCAO forms aligned with the ERPO, showcasing their commitment to effective legal documentation.:

See the Court’s February 7, 2023 memorandum for more info.

 Court Form Information

https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4908b5/siteassets/forms/scao-approved/recent-revisions/eoc_erpo.pdf

Related Articles

Cannabis cash transactions aren’t suspicious says IRS

Cannabis cash transactions aren’t suspicious says IRS

Following The MoneyLarge cash transactions by marijuana businesses should not be automatically flagged as suspicious, as per the latest IRS guidance. The tax agency's guidance aims to provide clarity on the federal Bank Secrecy Act, which mandates businesses,...

Our Kids are Dying of Drug Overdoses

Our Kids are Dying of Drug Overdoses

THE KIDS AREN’T ALRIGHT, THEY’RE DYING OF DRUG OVERDOSESFrom May 2022 to May 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported an alarming 37 percent increase in American lives lost due to overdoses, totaling over 112,000 fatalities. This staggering surge...

Rescheduling Marijuana Would Be a Threat to Public Health

Rescheduling Marijuana Would Be a Threat to Public Health

Kevin Sabet of Smart Approaches to Marijuana says policy makers need to learn from their mistakes with hemp when considering marijuana rescheduling. It’s rare for policymakers to get a preview of the consequences of pending policies, but the descheduling of...

Meet MiChap

Meet MiChap

Climate and Health Adaptation ProgramYou must save yourself from yourself.Meet MICHAPOur Vision: Michigan's public health system fosters equitable health and wellbeing as it adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. Our Mission: The Michigan Climate...

More Posts

Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio

Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio (1968)Background On October 31, 1963 while conducting his regular patrol in downtown Cleveland, seasoned Cleveland Police detective Martin McFadden, who...

read more

Marijuana reform advocates demand apology from Kamala Harris

Marijuana reform advocates demand apology from Kamala Harris

Mar 26, 2024 | Blog, USA news

So Sorry

Marijuana reform advocates demand an apology from Kamala Harris for locking up pot smokers and slam her ‘political hypocrisy’ for now saying no one should ‘go to jail for smoking weed!’

Marijuana reform advocates are urging Vice President Kamala Harris to issue an apology for her past actions of incarcerating individuals for marijuana use and possession. This call for accountability comes at a time when Harris is attempting to overhaul her public image as a compassionate champion of reform.

What’s an apology worth these days?

As a District Attorney of San Francisco, she oversaw more than 1,900 convictions for the use or possession of marijuana according to public records.

Harris also opposed the legalization of marijuana for recreational use until she ran for California’s Senate seat in 2015.

‘She absolutely has no moral authority to speak on this issue whatsoever,’ marijuana legal reform advocate Steve DeAngelo told the DailyMail.com after Harris’ event at the White House.

‘She has no right to speak about cannabis at all except to apologize for her hypocrisy.’

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

During her campaign for Attorney General of California in 2010, Harris took a stance against a ballot proposition that sought to legalize marijuana, resulting in a significant setback for the movement.

Advocates like DeAngelo comprehend the importance of President Joe Biden and Harris emphasizing the popular issue in anticipation of the 2024 election. However, they implore the leaders to take concrete actions that will have a substantial impact.

‘They’re giving out cookie crumbs when they could actually be helping folks in a very serious way,’ Jason Ortiz, the Director of Strategic Initiatives for the Last Prisoner Project told DailyMail.com.

Ortiz said that despite Biden’s 2022 federal pardon of thousands of marijuana convictions, ‘zero cannabis prisoners’ had actually been released from prison as a result of his action.

(The list of pardon applied to individuals already out of prison.)

The Last Prisoner Project is urging for President Biden to exercise his clemency powers in order to release 3,000 federal cannabis prisoners. In April, they plan to organize a protest outside the White House to raise awareness about this critical issue.

Read the rest here at DailyMail UK

Related Links

Statement from President Biden on Marijuana Reform 2022

Something from what once used to be a great news source

Marijuana Moment – Dumb vs Dumb

Analyzing The Biden Administration’s 2020 Cannabis Policy

Now sit back listen and keep calm

Related Articles

Cannabis cash transactions aren’t suspicious says IRS

Cannabis cash transactions aren’t suspicious says IRS

Following The MoneyLarge cash transactions by marijuana businesses should not be automatically flagged as suspicious, as per the latest IRS guidance. The tax agency's guidance aims to provide clarity on the federal Bank Secrecy Act, which mandates businesses,...

Our Kids are Dying of Drug Overdoses

Our Kids are Dying of Drug Overdoses

THE KIDS AREN’T ALRIGHT, THEY’RE DYING OF DRUG OVERDOSESFrom May 2022 to May 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported an alarming 37 percent increase in American lives lost due to overdoses, totaling over 112,000 fatalities. This staggering surge...

Rescheduling Marijuana Would Be a Threat to Public Health

Rescheduling Marijuana Would Be a Threat to Public Health

Kevin Sabet of Smart Approaches to Marijuana says policy makers need to learn from their mistakes with hemp when considering marijuana rescheduling. It’s rare for policymakers to get a preview of the consequences of pending policies, but the descheduling of...

Meet MiChap

Meet MiChap

Climate and Health Adaptation ProgramYou must save yourself from yourself.Meet MICHAPOur Vision: Michigan's public health system fosters equitable health and wellbeing as it adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. Our Mission: The Michigan Climate...

More Posts

Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio

Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio (1968)Background On October 31, 1963 while conducting his regular patrol in downtown Cleveland, seasoned Cleveland Police detective Martin McFadden, who...

read more
Federal Agency Smack Down on a Michigan Credit Union’s Cannabis Banking

Federal Agency Smack Down on a Michigan Credit Union’s Cannabis Banking

Mar 26, 2024 | Blog, USA news

Apple to Apples

An independent federal agency has recently cited a Michigan credit union for non-compliance with regulations regarding banking services for the marijuana industry. Consequently, the financial institution has been directed to halt the opening of new cannabis accounts.

The National Credit Union Administration’s cease-and-desist order emphasizes the need for financial institutions to maintain compliance when providing services to marijuana businesses.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a division of the U.S. Treasury, has issued regulations to financial institutions regarding the surveillance and reporting of suspicious activities, including potential money laundering.

The credit union had a manual system, which resulted in the late filing or missed suspicious activity reports.

But what about this –> Cannabis cash transactions aren’t suspicious says IRS

According to the order the credit union waived its right to appeal and agreed to take the following steps:

Immediately cease opening new marijuana accounts and suspend transactional activity on certain existing accounts. Implement an automated system to effectively monitor, identify and file suspicious activity reports in accordance with FinCEN regulations. Engage a third party to validate compliance.

Related Links

 Cease-and-Desist Order

 American Banker Article

Related Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

More Posts

Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio

Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio (1968)Background On October 31, 1963 while conducting his regular patrol in downtown Cleveland, seasoned Cleveland Police detective Martin McFadden, who...

read more
Cannabis cash transactions aren’t suspicious says IRS

Cannabis cash transactions aren’t suspicious says IRS

Mar 25, 2024 | Blog, USA news

Following The Money

Large cash transactions by marijuana businesses should not be automatically flagged as suspicious, as per the latest IRS guidance.

The tax agency’s guidance aims to provide clarity on the federal Bank Secrecy Act, which mandates businesses, including banks, to submit Form 8300 within 15 days if they receive $10,000 or more in cash.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Those forms enable the filer to categorize a transaction as “suspicious,” providing vital information for investigation by the IRS and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) into potential criminal activity.

But classifying a cash transaction from a legitimate cannabis enterprise as suspicious in a defensive manner is a misuse of that designation,” cautioned IRS Special Counsel Charles Hall in a memorandum dated January 22nd.

Links to the IRS Releases

IRS Guidence Release

Federal Bank Secrecy Act

Marking a cash transaction from a “legal” cannabis business as suspicious

Related Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

More Posts

Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio

Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio (1968)Background On October 31, 1963 while conducting his regular patrol in downtown Cleveland, seasoned Cleveland Police detective Martin McFadden, who...

read more