Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Ohio Cop Says Sheriff Spread Intimate Photos After Botched Arrest: Lawsuit

Episode Date: January 9, 2025

Ohio police officer Miranda Brothers is suing the county and sheriff where she lives claiming she was prosecuted for a crime where there was no evidence. Brothers' suit also claims a member of the Portage County Sheriff's Office found private photos on her phone and shared them with others. The misdemeanor child endangering charge filed against Brothers was eventually dismissed. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy looks at the lawsuit and body camera video of a stop involving Brothers and detectives in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Download the FREE Upside App at https://upside.app.link/crimefix to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest:Fanon Rucker https://www.instagram.com/fanonrucker/CRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. They're going to take custody of my kids? Yes. For what? We will explain all that to you as we go. That was Miranda Brothers, a police officer, when she was pulled over in Ohio a year ago. She was later accused of allowing her young son to hang out with a

sex offender. I'm going to tell you one thing, okay, that you working with us is not going to hurt you. Now Brothers is suing the sheriff's office and the county after the charge was thrown out and she claims private photos from her cell phone were passed around. I have the details. Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Miranda Brothers is a police officer in Northeast Ohio, and now she's taking the sheriff of the county where she lives to court, claiming she was prosecuted for endangering her five-year-old son with no evidence, and that a sheriff's detective found private photos of her on her cell phone during the investigation and then shared them with his fellow deputies. This all started on New Year's Day 2024, when detectives with the Portage County Sheriff's Office pulled her over.

Now, what the detectives told brothers shocked her. They were investigating a restaurant owner who was a sex offender, and somehow she got involved in this. No big secret. We're doing an investigation that involves Sebastian. Okay. Okay. No big secret. Okay. owner who was a sex offender, and somehow she got involved in this. and Job and Family Services is going to... Okay. Temporary custody. They're going to take custody of my kid? Yes. For what? We will explain all that to you as we go, okay?

I'm just letting you know where we're at and what we're doing, okay? And we're going to get things figured out as best we can for you, okay? So... What the hell? Take a minute, digest, okay? What in the... You're going to take custody of my kid because of him. Now, Miranda Brothers, as you can see, is clearly shocked. Her five-year-old son is in the car and detectives tell her no matter what they discuss, she is going home. All right. We got a couple more people coming, we'll get things taken care of, and we're going to do this, listen, okay?

What I want to do right now, okay, is I can't minimize anything for you right now, but I want to minimize everything I can for Alex, okay? So, work with us on that one, darling, and we'll go from there, okay? Alright. So work with us on that one darling And we'll go from there Okay Alright You say there's a dog too Is he going to bite my head off No Okay How long do I have to go without him

That's not up to me But we're going to do what we can Okay But I'm going to tell you one thing Okay That you working with us i'm going to tell you one thing okay that you working with us is not going to hurt you you know what i'm saying okay do you have your cell phone where's it at three years okay so let me see that so this search warrant for your cell phone, okay? I have my chief on the phone so I can hang up.

Okay, hang up. I have to go? They have a search warrant for my phone. They have a search warrant for my phone. So the detectives have a warrant for Brother's cell phone. She turns it over, and what she says next will become important later. So you guys are the ones sitting outside the apartment today. When I went to look because I saw you guys and then I went to the pool next to you and

I said, I just picked up my son in Virginia from my RPF. I am not going to lie to you. You guys thought it was me sitting there. Okay. That's what I thought. Okay. and RP it. I am not going to lie to you. I'm a really crappy liar, Miranda, so I don't do it. They may see other things on that phone they don't want to see, but they're not going to see anything that involves Sam. I want to tell you about Upside. It's a free app that gets you cash back on things like gas, groceries, and restaurants. This is real cash back. It's money

that appears in your Upside app that you can transfer straight into your bank account. I've used Upside at Dunkin' Donuts when I needed a cup of tea. I claimed an offer for Dunkin' on the app, paid as usual, and followed the steps, and I got cash back. It's really, really easy. You can also use Upside at places like Shell, 7-Eleven, Taco Bell, and that's just to name a few. To find out how much you could earn, click the link in the description to download Upside or scan the QR code on your screen and use our promo code CRIMEFIX to get an extra 25 cents back on every gallon on your first tank of gas. That's promo code CRIMEFIX for extra cash back.

The detective already told brothers that he didn't want to be there. Then two of the detectives start discussing how this whole thing started. Has she been told anything other than kids being removed? I told her that, you know, we're investigating Sebastian. She goes, OK. And I said, based on that, we've been working with the prosecutor and the prosecutor said we're removing. Good. I want to make sure she said this is. And we're going to go.

We'll reiterate that. I mean, it is, but it isn't. This wasn't our idea. No, we started the investigation. So you heard the detectives say that they started the investigation, but it wasn't their idea. The deputies eventually go back to Miranda Brothers, who's sobbing, and she was worried about whether she'll ever get her son back. Are they? I'm sorry, what? The dad is here. Are they going to give him to him? He has no custody rights to him, no. No.

Okay. Don't ever get him back from him. Okay. Here's what. Okay. Like I said, obviously we want to talk. Right now, I have an issue putting you behind the wheel of a car. I'm fine.

Okay, well, listen to me. This is a big role. Listen to me. Listen to me. Okay. Okay. We want to get down to the station right now. Okay. If the dog will be alright for a little bit in the car, let's have somebody drive you down to the office. Okay. We'll get things taken care of and we'll go from there. Is that okay? Yeah. Because, like I said, I'm concerned for you right now. Can you drive her down?

Yeah, we can drive her down. Okay. No, drive her car down. Yeah, we can drive her down. Okay. Okay. Miranda, before you go inside, you don't have any guns or anything in the car? Okay, I'm not going to look.

I'm not. I don't care if you do. There's nothing to do. Okay. Okay. Miranda Brothers sobs as social workers plan to take her son from her. Is it this black suitcase? Miranda, is it the black suitcase?

Yeah, it is. She said it's coat. It's coat. I bet you it is. Grab that point and get to him. I don't have her. You can have her. You can have her. Now, Miranda Brothers is an officer with the Manoway Police Department, and she was later charged with a misdemeanor count of endangering children for allegedly leaving her son with a sex offender.

Detectives wrote Juvenile A has been observed being watched by the offender alone without any other adult supervision. It is believed that Brothers allows the offender to spend extended periods of time along with Juvenile A. The prosecutor asked to dismiss this case in July, claiming a witness wasn't available because of a medical issue, and the judge granted the motion. Now Miranda Brothers is suing, and she claims the state never had any evidence to begin with. The suit states, as part of the investigation, the Portage County Sheriff's Office deployed at least two detectives to observe plaintiff Brothers and or Juvenile A on December 7th, 2023 in the village of Manaway, Ohio. Detective Hanna has testified that on December 7th, 2023, Detective Hanna did observe Juvenile A have minimal contact with a registered sex offender. This contact consisted of a registered

sex offender following Juvenile A outside and zipping up Juvenile A's coat. The suit continues. Detective Hanna has testified that on December 7th, 2023, Detective Hanna observed other adults supervising either Juvenile A or the registered sex offender. Had Detective Hanna observed any behavior on December 7th, 2023 that would cause him to conclude that Juvenile A was endangered, he would have taken steps to remove the child immediately. Miranda Brothers' attorney told a Cleveland TV station that she met her son's babysitter at a restaurant and that restaurant was owned by this registered sex offender. The suit also makes claims about the search of Miranda Brothers' cell phone that are pretty explosive. As a result of the forensic search, members of the Portage County Sheriff's Office came into contact with private digital images of plaintiff brothers, including Detective John Doe.

Despite knowing that the digital images were not relevant to any criminal charge, Detective John Doe shared and or disseminated these digital images within the Portage County Sheriff's Office and potentially further. The Portage County Sheriff's Office's conduct of observing, sharing, and or disseminating the private digital images of plaintiff brothers was so extreme and outrageous that it went beyond all possible bounds of decency and is intolerable in a civilized community. The suit goes on to say the Portage County Sheriff's Office's conduct caused psychological injury to plaintiff brothers. Miranda Brothers' lawsuit makes several claims, including malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a number of constitutional law violations. She also says she lost income because of the misdemeanor charge. The suit says,

as a result of the removal of Juvenile A and or the criminal prosecution for endangering children, Plaintiff Brothers was prohibited from accepting overtime slash off-duty details as a police officer for the village of Manaway. Portage County Sheriff Zukowski was informed of the actions of his detectives and supported their actions. I want to bring in Fanon Rucker. He is a lawyer with the Cochran Firm out of Ohio, and he's also a retired municipal court judge. So, Fanon, I'm wondering what you are thinking about this lawsuit, because I thought of you the minute I read through it. So, I watched the video. I read the lawsuit. You know, lawsuits are so technical, but the experiences that we have as citizens are

practical. And the practical reality of what happened to this citizen, this police officer, this mother, is pretty disheartening. It's pretty depressing. I can't imagine as a father and a grandfather being in the position of having these law enforcement officers around you and taking your phone and charging you with crimes that could destroy your reputation and your career. I mean, it's a tough set of facts. And the lawsuit is drafted to address that tough set of facts.

I find it just kind of wild that she is claiming they had no evidence. She was apparently, according to her lawyer, he talked to a TV station in Cleveland. I reached out to him. He has not gotten back to me yet at the time of this recording. He said that she would go to this restaurant, this sub shop, and it appears that they had had some events there with the police department in the past where they were collecting toys for kids and stuff like that. She would drop her child off there, meet the babysitter there. This was like a rendezvous spot. And they're saying they saw, the police are saying they saw this registered sex offender who apparently owns a sub shop zipping up the kid's coat or something like that. And they said, we believe in their

probable cause statement, you know, we believe that the child spends extended periods of time with this guy. They said, we believe, but they didn't really have anything more to back that up. It just sounds very strange. I mean, she's a police officer. It doesn't mean that she can't commit a crime, but just the basis for the charge. What are you thinking about that? They charged her with a misdemeanor for child endangering, and the charge was later dropped. Right. So when we talk about malicious prosecution or arrest without probable cause, and that's really the grovement or the basis of this complaint, there's a couple of components to it. And these are types of cases that I handle pretty regularly. What you have to have is a

charge initiated against somebody. And it could be a traffic offense or a more serious criminal offense like this was, or even some of the most serious charges of murder or kidnapping. But the essential basis of the case is that somebody, the state started a prosecution, they arrested somebody, they moved forward with the case, but ultimately the case was resolved in favor of the person who was arrested or charged. Now that in favor could be that the judge looked at it and said, oh my gosh, this is a ridiculous case. I said that a few times when I was on the bench and threw it out. Or it could be that the state looks at it after police officers initially file a claim and then they decide, well, this

wasn't appropriate. This is wrong. Or they're found not guilty by a jury or a judge. And now it's been resolved in their favor. And they can then argue that there was no basis in the beginning. It's a tough claim to make. I'll be honest with you. Law enforcement has a lot of protections

in place to kind of cushion them for the decisions that they make in law enforcement. But here, that's tough. It's almost like she was being targeted for some reason by somebody. That's not what's alleged in the complaint, but that certainly is something that in my practical mind comes across to me when I read the complaint and look at these facts. Yeah. And her lawyer had kind of implied that

before in an interview with a TV station in Cleveland. And it's interesting because in the body camera footage that we showed a little bit earlier, one of the officers basically says to her, one of the deputies, the detective says, you know, I don't want to be here doing this. I mean, maybe that's just talk. But then he's in a cruiser with another deputy, a detective. And, you know, they're kind of saying they started this investigation, but this part of it, what this was not their idea. So they said they were working with the prosecutor's office. I mean, it came from somewhere. Somebody said to go forward with this. So it makes me wonder if that's part of what's going on here, too. They want to they want to see where the focus on her kind of came about.

Why did they kind of hone in and zero in on her? That's right. And, you know, there's something that was not explained in the complaint, but something that kind of raised my concern, my concerning eyebrow. And that is that they had a search warrant to search her cell phone. Now, when we talk about search warrants and the ability to go through people's phones or their mail or anything else, they need probable cause. That's right. A judge has to actually review some information from a law enforcement officer in order for the judge to issue that search warrant in the first place. And it's not a low standard. It's not just, oh, sure, because the right to

privacy by the Fourth Amendment is something that we hold dear in this country. And the courts are very serious about protecting. So when judges are asked to be able to infiltrate that person's privacy and review their phones, it's something, again, that they take very seriously. So the fact that they had a warrant to seize and review the contents of her phone, which of course the allegation is that they went too far with that and looked at some private pictures and then started sharing them amongst each other who were not involved in the case, that's a raised eyebrow because that almost justifies some aspect of what they're doing with this stop and this arrest and removing the

child. Yeah. And I wanted to move on to that. You kind of brought that up. I mean, that's another allegation in this that she suffered a psychological injury because she said during the traffic stop, you know, there's some stuff on that phone, but it's not about, it's not about, you know, that restaurant owner or anything like that. So they find private photos, she claims, and then they pass them around and that it caused her psychological injury. So that part of it, wow. If they're passing around private photos of her, I mean, yikes, Fanon.

That's a pretty serious violation. It is. And one of the claims I was looking for when I read the complaint, knowing that that was one of the allegations, was a complaint of invasion of privacy. That's a common law claim. A lot of these are common law claims,

and I don't want to go into a deep explanation of federal claims versus state claims, but the majority of these are state common law claims. And I don't want to go into a deep explanation of federal claims versus state claims, but the majority of these are state common law claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress, state claim, malicious prosecution, state claim. And there were several that were intentional afflictions for the conduct that was alleged to have occurred. But I was looking for an invasion of privacy claim. That is, look, I got some private stuff going on and you without authority, without justification, dug into my private life. And then you went talking about other people

that you had no business talking about it. Now the allegations are there, even if that specific claim is not, but you just kind of wonder if that isn't a view into what really was that issue here. Maybe there was some officer or law enforcement individual or private individual who knew her from private stuff unrelated to policing and wanted to get at that information.

Maybe there was a jilted lover who knew that there was information that could be embarrassing. And so they made an allegation that she was engaged in somehow with her child being exposed to a child predator. Who knows? Obviously, the lawsuit is going to reveal more, but there's a lot of things that really leave questions in the mind about what was the motive here? Why did they do this? And who was this that disseminated? Who saw it? And how did she even find out about that? Yeah, it's there are a lot of questions, a lot of questions still hanging out there. You know, I reached out to the chief of the Manoway Police Department. She is still employed there.

She was placed on some sort of leave, he said, while this investigation was going on. But now that things have been resolved and the case was dismissed, she's back to active duty. There is an interesting component of this. She at the time was dating the police chief. Apparently there were some issues with that. So there's a lot going on in the background that we don't really have a lot of answers to. So it would be interesting to know what motivated the investigation into her and her parenting of this child. You know, I reached out to the sheriff's office. The sheriff's secretary told me that, you know, there was no comment on this at this time. She alluded to the fact that there's some misinformation in the suit

and, you know, the prosecutor's office has not gotten back to me about a comment on the suit. So I guess we're just going to have to wait for it to move forward and make its way through the courts. That's right. And one of the claims that was made in the lawsuit was a 1983 claim. And what that alludes to is 42 USC 1983, which is what we know as civil rights actions. And it's a federal statute. So even though this was filed in state court, it is very possible, in fact, very likely that with that federal claim, the state is going to remove this or take this out of the state court judge's hands and move this over to federal court, where we might have a lot

less access to it and the proceedings and what happens than we would if it stayed in state court. Yeah. When I saw that reference to the constitutional law violations, I thought that was pretty interesting that they had filed it in state court rather than in federal court. Well, she's seeking basically, if you total it all up, in excess of $500,000. I mean, she's seeking a certain if you total it all up, in excess of $500,000. I mean, she's seeking a certain amount of money for each claim. So we'll see what happens with it. Fanon Rucker, thank you so much for coming on.

I appreciate it. Thank you. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.