Bob CollinsA grand jury has today indicted Minneapolis cop Michael D. Roberts, 57, on corruption charges.
The indictment reads like a cheap novel.
8. In or about August 2007, the defendant devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud and to deprive the State of Minnesota and its citizens of the intangible right to the defendant’s honest services, performed free of deceit, fraud, dishonesty, conflict of interest and self-enrichment, and caused the transmission of an interstate wire communication for the purpose of executing his scheme.
9. On August 9, 2007, the defendant met with a person, “T.T.,” whom defendant understood was engaged in criminal activity. During that meeting, the defendant caused a National Crime Information Center (NCIC) internet inquiry and obtained nonpublic
information from the State Driver Vehicle System (“DVS”) regarding a Minnesota license plate number XXX XXX, which defendant then provided to T.T. When accessing this information, the defendant intentionally failed to notify the Minneapolis Police Department
and concealed that his effort was not law enforcement related. This omission by the defendant was material. The defendant took $100 from T.T. for obtaining the information. The following day, T.T. asked for additional information, but the defendant indicated he could not provide at that time because he did not have a squad car at that moment.
10. On August 14, 2007, the defendant again met with T.T., this time in the defendant’s squad car. At the beginning of this meeting, T.T. identified himself to the defendant as a member of the Gangster Disciples street gang. At the request of T.T., the defendant improperly accessed the Minneapolis Police Department “CAPRS” computer system and provided information to T.T. from the nonpublic portion of the CAPRS system. The information obtained by the defendant came from a police report regarding a person who was allegedly providing information to law enforcement regarding T.T.’s narcotics distribution activities. The defendant knew this information was nonpublic and knew it was illegal to provide the information to T.T. The defendant failed to notify the Minneapolis
Police Department that this search of the CAPRS system was not law enforcement related. The defendant again took $100 from T.T. for obtaining the information.
11. Shortly after receiving the $100 from T.T., the defendant suspected that T.T. may have been working as an informant. Thereafter, The defendant filed a false police report, CCN: MP-07- 269790, stating in the report “when the party left [T.T.], he moved to shake the officer’s hand and actually put 5 – $20 bills in the officer’s hand. This money was later property inventoried.” The defendant never put the $100 that he received from T.T. into
property, but instead used it for his own private purposes.
