'This is America. I’ll Be Where I Wanna Be.' - Michigan Man Sues Police for Arresting Him at Crash Scene

The incident that led to Robert C. Bigger's lawsuit began with a single-vehicle crash on Vaughn Road near Hale in Plainfield Township, Michigan. On the evening of December 4th, a woman driving a car given to her by Bigger and his wife lost control and crashed. Fortunately, she was uninjured, but the crash left her vehicle incapacitated on the side of the road.

The woman, who struggles financially and cares for her two adult children, has a close relationship with Bigger and his wife. Recognizing her difficult situation, Bigger and his wife had provided her with the car to help her manage her daily responsibilities. When the accident occurred, the woman immediately called Bigger’s wife to inform her of the situation.

Concerned for her well-being and the state of the vehicle they had provided, Bigger and his wife quickly made their way to the crash scene. Bigger arrived wearing a camouflage vest with hunter’s orange, a common outfit in the area. His intention was to offer support and assistance, ensuring the woman was safe and to understand the circumstances surrounding the accident.

Upon arrival, Bigger began speaking with the Michigan State Police troopers who were already on the scene. The troopers were in the process of investigating the crash and had issued the woman a citation for causing the accident. Bigger approached the troopers' vehicle and started questioning them through the driver’s side window, seeking to understand why the citation was issued.

The situation escalated as Bigger persistently asked questions and expressed his frustration with the troopers' handling of the incident. Despite his efforts to explain his connection to the woman and his vested interest in the situation, the troopers repeatedly instructed him to return to his vehicle. Bigger, standing a few feet from the road, argued that he had the right to be present and that he was not obstructing their investigation.

The interaction between Bigger and the troopers became increasingly tense. The troopers, frustrated by Bigger’s refusal to leave the scene, warned him multiple times that he would be arrested for obstruction if he did not comply. Bigger continued to question their actions, leading to a physical confrontation. The troopers forcibly took Bigger to the ground, used a Taser on him, and handcuffed him with two sets of cuffs, despite his wife's pleas about his pre-existing shoulder injuries.

The aftermath of this incident, which left Bigger in need of surgery for tears in his shoulders’ rotator cuffs, set the stage for the legal battle that followed. The lawsuit filed by Bigger and his attorney, Jonathan R. Marko, claims that the troopers' actions were excessive and violated his constitutional rights, sparking a critical discussion about police conduct and the protection of citizens' rights.

The Encounter with Police

Robert C. Bigger's encounter with the Michigan State Police troopers at the crash scene on Vaughn Road quickly escalated from a concerned citizen's inquiry to a contentious and ultimately physical confrontation. The interaction began when Bigger arrived at the scene, wearing a camouflage vest with hunter’s orange, and approached the troopers who were investigating the crash and issuing a citation to the woman driver. 

Initially, Bigger leaned in through the driver’s side window of the troopers' vehicle, asking why the woman, whom he and his wife had been helping by providing the car, was being cited. His questioning was persistent and insistent, as he sought to understand the reasons behind the troopers' actions. The body-worn cameras of the troopers captured the escalating exchange.

One of the troopers asked Bigger, "Sir, can you go back to your car?" to which Bigger replied, "This is America. I’ll be where I wanna be." This response set the tone for the interaction, highlighting Bigger's belief in his right to be present and involved.

As the conversation continued, Bigger expressed his frustration over what he perceived as an unnecessary citation for the woman driver. He pointed out that vehicles often spin out and crash on that stretch of road, even when traveling at the speed limit. The troopers, in turn, explained that the citation was issued because the woman caused the crash. They repeatedly instructed Bigger to return to his vehicle, but he persisted in seeking further explanations.

The dialogue grew more heated, with the troopers asking Bigger why he was so angry and what his connection to the woman driver was. Bigger responded that he had given her the car and that he was looking out for her well-being. Despite his attempts to clarify his involvement, the troopers remained firm in their instructions for him to leave the scene.

At one point, Bigger walked a few feet away from the road and stated, "This is the Huron National Forest," asserting his right to be present in a public space. He reiterated his desire for answers and not to be "buffaloed" by the officers. The troopers and Bigger continued to argue, their voices overlapping, with the troopers threatening him with arrest for obstruction if he did not comply.

As the situation intensified, Trooper Grubbs warned Bigger’s wife to get him back to their vehicle, saying, "You better get him back to his car 'cause if he continues—" Bigger, turning toward Grubbs, responded, "She better not do nothing, first of all." At this point, Grubbs decided to arrest Bigger, stating, "OK, you know what, you’re under arrest," and grabbing him.

The confrontation became physical as Troopers Grubbs and Henderson grappled with Bigger, taking him to the snowy ground while he shouted that he was not fighting or resisting. Despite Bigger's wife's pleas for the troopers to avoid using force due to his shoulder injuries, the officers used a Taser on him and handcuffed him with two sets of cuffs.

The troopers then lifted Bigger to his feet and led him to a patrol vehicle. During this process, one of the troopers ensured that their body cameras were recording the incident. They also questioned Bigger about possible alcohol consumption, to which he replied, "Negative. I don’t answer questions. Talking, this is what talking gets you in America."

Bigger stood outside the patrol vehicle for a few minutes before the troopers finally loaded him in. The reports later filed by the troopers stated that they had asked Bigger approximately 13 times to return to his vehicle and that he had engaged in active resistance during the arrest. The charges brought against him included obstruction and obscene conduct by a disorderly person. However, Bigger eventually pled guilty to disturbing the peace, resulting in a fine and credit for time served in jail.

This intense and ultimately violent encounter with police set the stage for the federal lawsuit that Bigger filed, claiming that the troopers' actions were excessive and violated his constitutional rights. The lawsuit seeks to address these grievances and bring about accountability for the officers involved.

The Arrest and Use of Force

The arrest of Robert C. Bigger was a pivotal moment in the incident that has since led to a federal lawsuit against the Michigan State Police troopers involved. The confrontation, which escalated from a verbal disagreement to a physical altercation, showcases the contentious dynamics between Bigger and the officers, ultimately leading to a controversial use of force.

As the verbal exchange between Bigger and the troopers intensified, Trooper Kyle Grubbs issued multiple warnings that Bigger would be arrested for obstruction if he did not comply with their orders to return to his vehicle. Despite these warnings, Bigger continued to question the officers' actions and assert his right to be present at the scene, which he argued was part of the Huron National Forest.

The situation reached a breaking point when Bigger, walking away with his wife, turned back towards the troopers after Grubbs warned his wife to get him back to their vehicle. Grubbs then declared, "OK, you know what, you’re under arrest," and moved to detain Bigger. Troopers Grubbs and Justin R. Henderson grappled with Bigger, taking him to the snowy ground.

As they struggled, Bigger repeatedly shouted that he was not fighting or resisting, while his wife pleaded with the officers, "Please don’t tase him! He’s not doing anything! He has bad shoulders, guys!" Despite her pleas, the troopers used a Taser on Bigger, temporarily incapacitating him. Once on the ground, the officers applied two sets of handcuffs to secure him, purportedly to accommodate his shoulder injuries and ensure he was restrained effectively.

The use of force during the arrest resulted in significant injuries to Bigger. He sustained tears in the rotator cuffs of both shoulders, injuries that would later require surgical intervention. The immediate aftermath of the arrest saw Bigger in visible pain as the troopers lifted him to his feet and escorted him to their patrol vehicle.

The entire incident was recorded on the troopers' body-worn cameras, capturing the sequence of events from the initial verbal exchange to the physical arrest and the application of the Taser. These recordings have played a crucial role in the subsequent legal proceedings, providing clear evidence of the interaction and the actions taken by both Bigger and the troopers.

Following his arrest, Bigger was questioned about potential alcohol consumption, to which he responded, "Negative. I don’t answer questions. Talking, this is what talking gets you in America." He was then held outside the patrol vehicle for several minutes before being loaded in and transported.

The arrest resulted in charges against Bigger, including obstruction and obscene conduct by a disorderly person. However, he eventually pled guilty to disturbing the peace, a lesser charge, and was ordered to pay a fine while receiving credit for two days served in jail.

Bigger's injuries required medical attention beyond the immediate aftermath of the arrest. The tears in his rotator cuffs necessitated surgery to repair the damage, highlighting the severity of the physical trauma he endured during the incident. The need for surgery not only underscores the extent of his injuries but also amplifies the claims of excessive force made in the lawsuit filed on his behalf.

Attorney Jonathan R. Marko, representing Bigger, has emphasized that the officers' actions were excessive and unwarranted, violating Bigger's constitutional rights. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, aiming to hold the officers accountable for their actions and to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

The arrest and use of force against Robert C. Bigger serve as a critical example of the potential consequences of police-citizen interactions that escalate unnecessarily. The case highlights the importance of professionalism, restraint, and respect for constitutional rights in law enforcement, and it underscores the ongoing need for accountability and reform in policing practices.

Legal Grounds for the Lawsuit

The lawsuit filed by attorney Jonathan R. Marko on behalf of Robert C. Bigger arises from the controversial arrest and use of force by Michigan State Police troopers Kyle Grubbs and Justin R. Henderson. This legal action, now proceeding in U.S. District Court, seeks to address what Bigger and his legal team assert are severe violations of his constitutional rights.

Overview of the Lawsuit

The federal lawsuit was initiated by Bigger’s attorney, Jonathan R. Marko, on April 2, 2024. It names the Michigan State Police troopers involved in the incident and seeks both compensatory and punitive damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees. The central claims of the lawsuit focus on the alleged use of excessive force by the troopers and the violation of Bigger's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Allegations of Excessive Force and Constitutional Violations

The core of Bigger's lawsuit rests on two significant allegations: the use of excessive force and violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Excessive Force: The lawsuit contends that Troopers Grubbs and Henderson employed excessive and unnecessary force during Bigger’s arrest. The use of a Taser and the physical struggle that ensued are central points of contention. The suit argues that Bigger was not physically resisting arrest and that the force used was disproportionate to the situation. This claim is bolstered by the body-worn camera footage, which captures the troopers’ actions and Bigger’s repeated statements that he was not fighting or resisting.

Fourth Amendment Violation: The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Bigger's lawsuit claims that his arrest was unwarranted and that the force used constituted an unreasonable seizure. By using a Taser and physically restraining him despite his lack of resistance, the troopers allegedly violated his right to be free from excessive force during an arrest.

Fourteenth Amendment Violation: The Fourteenth Amendment ensures due process and equal protection under the law. Bigger's lawsuit alleges that his treatment by the troopers violated his right to due process. The manner in which the arrest was conducted and the injuries sustained as a result are cited as evidence of this violation. The lawsuit argues that the troopers failed to act with the necessary professionalism and respect for Bigger's constitutional protections.

Initial Charges and Plea

Following the incident, Bigger faced charges of obstruction and obscene conduct by a disorderly person. These charges were based on the troopers' reports, which stated that Bigger engaged in active resistance approximately 13 times when asked to return to his vehicle.

However, during court proceedings, Bigger pled guilty to the lesser charge of disturbing the peace. This plea resulted in a fine of $400 and credit for two days served in jail. The disturbing the peace charge is often viewed as a broad and catch-all misdemeanor, which, according to attorney Marko, was used to justify the arrest and subsequent use of force.

Marko has criticized the use of such charges as a means to mitigate the accountability of the officers involved. He argues that the charges and the plea do not diminish the reality of the excessive force used against Bigger and the significant injuries he sustained.

Legal and Societal Implications

Bigger’s lawsuit highlights critical issues regarding police conduct and the use of force. By pursuing this case, Bigger and his legal team aim to hold the officers accountable for their actions and to deter similar incidents in the future. The lawsuit seeks to bring attention to the need for police reform and the importance of respecting citizens' constitutional rights during law enforcement interactions.

Attorney Marko has emphasized that the primary goal of the lawsuit is to effect change, ensuring that incidents like this do not happen to other innocent individuals. The case underscores the necessity of maintaining professional and ethical standards in policing and reinforces the importance of protecting constitutional rights in all law enforcement activities.

As the lawsuit progresses, it serves as a crucial reminder of the ongoing dialogue surrounding police practices, the use of force, and the protection of individual rights in the United States. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for law enforcement accountability and the broader efforts to reform policing practices nationwide.

Reactions and Statements

The case involving Robert C. Bigger and the Michigan State Police troopers has elicited strong reactions from both Bigger and his attorney, Jonathan R. Marko. Their statements emphasize the perceived injustices that occurred during the arrest and highlight the broader implications for constitutional rights and police conduct.

Criticisms from Attorney Jonathan R. Marko

Attorney Jonathan R. Marko has been vocal in his criticism of the police officers' actions during the incident. He contends that the troopers' behavior was not only unprofessional but also a clear violation of Bigger's constitutional rights. Marko's statements reflect his deep concern about the use of excessive force and the need for accountability in law enforcement.

‍

Marko has stated, "This is just a good Samaritan trying to help out who had his constitutional rights violated by these police officers. It’s mindboggling that officers who are supposed to serve and protect instead used this as an opportunity to abuse and neglect."

He further criticized the troopers for their lack of patience and professionalism, saying, "This whole incident was entirely avoidable by the police officers just using a modicum of professionalism and patience and courtesy. Instead, they chose to escalate the situation unnecessarily, resulting in serious harm to my client."

Marko's statements underscore the severity of the allegations and the need for systemic changes to prevent such incidents from recurring. He believes that the officers' actions were not isolated but indicative of broader issues within policing practices.

Statements from Robert C. Bigger and His Attorney

Robert C. Bigger, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, has expressed his frustration and disappointment with the way he was treated by the police. His statements reflect his belief that his rights were grossly violated and that the incident has had a profound impact on his life.

Bigger remarked, "Talking, this is what talking gets you in America," highlighting his view that his attempts to seek answers and engage in dialogue with the troopers were met with undue aggression and force. He has emphasized that his intentions were to assist the woman involved in the crash and to understand the situation, not to obstruct or resist the officers.

Attorney Jonathan R. Marko has also spoken about the broader implications of the case for constitutional rights and police conduct. He has stated, "First and foremost, my client hopes to make a change so this doesn’t happen to any other innocent people. He hopes through this lawsuit that those who violated his constitutional rights will be held accountable, and that this will deter and prevent these types of things from happening to other people."

Marko's statements reflect a commitment to not only seeking justice for Bigger but also advocating for systemic reforms. The lawsuit aims to bring attention to the need for greater accountability and oversight in law enforcement, ensuring that officers adhere to constitutional standards and treat citizens with respect and dignity.

‍