A federal judge ruled Tuesday that former Burlington Police Chief Brandon del Pozo’s failure to disclose his anonymous Twitter account as part of an ongoing federal excessive force lawsuit does not rise to a sanctionable offense.
Lawyers for brothers Albin, Charlie and Jeremie Meli, brought an excessive force claim in May against the city, del Pozo and two other Burlington police officers. The suit asked for a monetary penalty against the city and to give default judgment to the brothers because del Pozo and the city were not truthful about the fake social media account.
Federal Judge William Sessions III said the Meli brothers “failed to show any discernable [sic] harm” from del Pozo’s failure to admit operating the account.
The filing in federal court said the city failed to disclose the internal investigation it conducted after del Pozo confided his actions to Mayor Miro Weinberger, who then placed del Pozo on administrative leave, though it was not known publicly at the time del Pozo created the “@WinkleWatchers” Twitter account.
Del Pozo briefly operated the fake account and used it to troll local activist Charles Winkleman. The chief later admitted to creating the account to Seven Days, and resigned on Dec. 16.
Burlington is currently facing three federal excessive force lawsuits.
The Meli brothers filed the request for sanctions the day del Pozo resigned.
The city updated the information requested by the Meli brothers in the discovery findings for the case after the motion was filed, but argued del Pozo’s fake social media account does not pertain to the excessive force suit. The city also said the internal investigation into del Pozo “did not constitute the sort of civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding described in [the Meli brothers’] discovery requests.”
In a five-page order, Sessions deemed the motion “a discovery dispute” and said the brothers’ attorney did not abide by procedural rules by failing to resolve the dispute “in good faith with opposing counsel.” Sessions said the failure to abide by those rules constitutes enough of a basis to deny the motion.
The case will continue despite the motion being denied.
